UH OH Spaghetti Oh! Hansen says the temps have been flat!

[asterism]

The better question, Ass-ter, is why would you imagine that surface temperatures should instantly respond to increased CO2 levels?

Go ahead, try to answer that one. Seriously, I dare you.

The real answer, of course, is that you are completely ignorant about physics and you have no idea what you're talking about.

There really is no need to be rude. I never suggested that the surface temperatures should instantly respond to increased CO2 levels. That is the implication made by the many reports and graphs that I've seen over the years that purport to prove the direct correlation between CO2 and global surface temperatures. The notion that there is centuries long lag is new to me so I asked about it.

It appears you cannot find any data to prove your claim so it appears that you are lashing out. Perhaps you might consider that the answer to ignorance is information, not being childish and snippy.

So educate me. Give me your description of the physics involved with rising CO2 levels and how it can take hundreds of years for that rise to affect temperatures on a global scale.

You're distorting what I said. I never said that it takes hundreds of years for rising CO2 levels to affect global temperatures. Rising CO2 levels are obviously already affecting temperatures. Our debate stemmed from the article I posted regarding a study of conditions on Earth 15 million years ago when CO2 levels were last sustained for centuries at a level as high as they are right now and when the temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees hotter and the sea levels 75 to 125 feet higher than at present. You questioned why current temperatures aren't already 5 to 10 degrees hotter and I told you that it takes some time for the rise in CO2 to bring the temperatures up to an equilibrium with the forcing caused by the extra CO2. You express disbelief but the only grounds for your disbelief is your apparent ignorance of both basic physics and the time lags inherent in changing large natural systems. Mankind has raised CO2 levels far faster than natural processes usually can manage to do and we're still raising them at a high rate of increase. Greenhouse gases like CO2 cause more heat energy to be retained in the atmosphere and on the surface and that heat builds up to the point where it reaches a new equilibrium and the amount of heat energy hitting the Earth balances with the amount of heat energy being radiated away into space, with the Earth's 'thermostat' having been reset in the process to a new higher average temperature. This process takes some time during which average temperatures keep rising.

In short, a rise in CO2 causes an almost immediate slow rise in temperatures but it takes a while for the heat to build up to the new equilibrium of the radiation balance of the atmosphere.

But how does that happen, and when has it happened in the past?

I did not intend to distort what you said. However, ALL of the studies and graphs I've seen over the last 10 years show a near direct correlation of CO2 and temperatures. I've not seen any that show a large rise in CO2 followed by a slower rise in temperatures.

To be honest, the scenario you pose makes more logical sense to me. So has it ever happened before?

What "basic physics" am I missing here? That implies that this AGW stuff is simple.

 

[RollingThunder]

There really is no need to be rude. I never suggested that the surface temperatures should instantly respond to increased CO2 levels. That is the implication made by the many reports and graphs that I've seen over the years that purport to prove the direct correlation between CO2 and global surface temperatures. The notion that there is centuries long lag is new to me so I asked about it.

It appears you cannot find any data to prove your claim so it appears that you are lashing out. Perhaps you might consider that the answer to ignorance is information, not being childish and snippy.

So educate me. Give me your description of the physics involved with rising CO2 levels and how it can take hundreds of years for that rise to affect temperatures on a global scale.

You're distorting what I said. I never said that it takes hundreds of years for rising CO2 levels to affect global temperatures. Rising CO2 levels are obviously already affecting temperatures. Our debate stemmed from the article I posted regarding a study of conditions on Earth 15 million years ago when CO2 levels were last sustained for centuries at a level as high as they are right now and when the temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees hotter and the sea levels 75 to 125 feet higher than at present. You questioned why current temperatures aren't already 5 to 10 degrees hotter and I told you that it takes some time for the rise in CO2 to bring the temperatures up to an equilibrium with the forcing caused by the extra CO2. You express disbelief but the only grounds for your disbelief is your apparent ignorance of both basic physics and the time lags inherent in changing large natural systems. Mankind has raised CO2 levels far faster than natural processes usually can manage to do and we're still raising them at a high rate of increase. Greenhouse gases like CO2 cause more heat energy to be retained in the atmosphere and on the surface and that heat builds up to the point where it reaches a new equilibrium and the amount of heat energy hitting the Earth balances with the amount of heat energy being radiated away into space, with the Earth's 'thermostat' having been reset in the process to a new higher average temperature. This process takes some time during which average temperatures keep rising.

In short, a rise in CO2 causes an almost immediate slow rise in temperatures but it takes a while for the heat to build up to the new equilibrium of the radiation balance of the atmosphere.

But how does that happen, and when has it happened in the past?

I did not intend to distort what you said. However, ALL of the studies and graphs I've seen over the last 10 years show a near direct correlation of CO2 and temperatures. I've not seen any that show a large rise in CO2 followed by a slower rise in temperatures.

To be honest, the scenario you pose makes more logical sense to me. So has it ever happened before?

What "basic physics" am I missing here? That implies that this AGW stuff is simple.

Perhaps an analogy would help you to understand this.

If you fill a large pot with water and put it on your gas stove burner, the flame is about 3000 degrees F. The boiling point of water is only 212 degrees. Why doesn't all the water flash into steam immediately? 3000 degrees is so much hotter than the boiling point. The answer is that it takes time for the heat from the very hot flame to permeate and heat the mass of the water. The water has what is called thermal inertia. The Earth's atmosphere masses about 5 quadrillion tons and it has thermal inertia too. The heat retained by the extra CO2 in the air is also passing into the oceans. The Earth's oceans have a volume of about 310 million cubic miles. That's some enormous thermal inertia there too. Just as it takes some time for a large pot of water to boil, so too does it take some time for the Earth's atmosphere and surface to warm.

 

[asterism]

You're distorting what I said. I never said that it takes hundreds of years for rising CO2 levels to affect global temperatures. Rising CO2 levels are obviously already affecting temperatures. Our debate stemmed from the article I posted regarding a study of conditions on Earth 15 million years ago when CO2 levels were last sustained for centuries at a level as high as they are right now and when the temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees hotter and the sea levels 75 to 125 feet higher than at present. You questioned why current temperatures aren't already 5 to 10 degrees hotter and I told you that it takes some time for the rise in CO2 to bring the temperatures up to an equilibrium with the forcing caused by the extra CO2. You express disbelief but the only grounds for your disbelief is your apparent ignorance of both basic physics and the time lags inherent in changing large natural systems. Mankind has raised CO2 levels far faster than natural processes usually can manage to do and we're still raising them at a high rate of increase. Greenhouse gases like CO2 cause more heat energy to be retained in the atmosphere and on the surface and that heat builds up to the point where it reaches a new equilibrium and the amount of heat energy hitting the Earth balances with the amount of heat energy being radiated away into space, with the Earth's 'thermostat' having been reset in the process to a new higher average temperature. This process takes some time during which average temperatures keep rising.

In short, a rise in CO2 causes an almost immediate slow rise in temperatures but it takes a while for the heat to build up to the new equilibrium of the radiation balance of the atmosphere.

But how does that happen, and when has it happened in the past?

I did not intend to distort what you said. However, ALL of the studies and graphs I've seen over the last 10 years show a near direct correlation of CO2 and temperatures. I've not seen any that show a large rise in CO2 followed by a slower rise in temperatures.

To be honest, the scenario you pose makes more logical sense to me. So has it ever happened before?

What "basic physics" am I missing here? That implies that this AGW stuff is simple.

Perhaps an analogy would help you to understand this.

If you fill a large pot with water and put it on your gas stove burner, the flame is about 3000 degrees F. The boiling point of water is only 212 degrees. Why doesn't all the water flash into steam immediately? 3000 degrees is so much hotter than the boiling point. The answer is that it takes time for the heat from the very hot flame to permeate and heat the mass of the water. The water has what is called thermal inertia. The Earth's atmosphere masses about 5 quadrillion tons and it has thermal inertia too. The heat retained by the extra CO2 in the air is also passing into the oceans. The Earth's oceans have a volume of about 310 million cubic miles. That's some enormous thermal inertia there too. Just as it takes some time for a large pot of water to boil, so too does it take some time for the Earth's atmosphere and surface to warm.

The analogy makes sense. So when has it happened before?

 

[SSDD]

The better question, Ass-ter, is why would you imagine that surface temperatures should instantly respond to increased CO2 levels?

Go ahead, try to answer that one. Seriously, I dare you.

The real answer, of course, is that you are completely ignorant about physics and you have no idea what you're talking about.

According to agw hypothesis, the surface is warmed by downdwelling radiation resulting from radiative gasses. The hypothesis suggests that an increase in CO2 will result in an increase in downdwelling radiation. Radiation moves at, or near the speed of light. An increase in CO2 should result in an immediate increase in downdewelling radiation and therfore a nearly instantaneous increase in temperature.

Funny thing is, though, that downdwelling radiation can't be measured at all unless the instrument has been cooled to a temperature far below the ambient. Explain that. And try doing it in your own words since you claimed to be able to discuss the topic.

 

[SSDD]

Perhaps an analogy would help you to understand this.

If you fill a large pot with water and put it on your gas stove burner, the flame is about 3000 degrees F. The boiling point of water is only 212 degrees. Why doesn't all the water flash into steam immediately? 3000 degrees is so much hotter than the boiling point. The answer is that it takes time for the heat from the very hot flame to permeate and heat the mass of the water. The water has what is called thermal inertia. The Earth's atmosphere masses about 5 quadrillion tons and it has thermal inertia too. The heat retained by the extra CO2 in the air is also passing into the oceans. The Earth's oceans have a volume of about 310 million cubic miles. That's some enormous thermal inertia there too. Just as it takes some time for a large pot of water to boil, so too does it take some time for the Earth's atmosphere and surface to warm.

Why don't you try an apt analogy. No matter how long you leave the water on the burner, it will never achieve a temperature of more than 212 degrees.

By the way, the atmosphere isn't warming, not for the past 15 years anyway in spite of steadily increasing CO2.

 

[RollingThunder]

The better question, Ass-ter, is why would you imagine that surface temperatures should instantly respond to increased CO2 levels?

Go ahead, try to answer that one. Seriously, I dare you.

The real answer, of course, is that you are completely ignorant about physics and you have no idea what you're talking about.

According to agw hypothesis, the surface is warmed by downdwelling radiation resulting from radiative gasses. The hypothesis suggests that an increase in CO2 will result in an increase in downdwelling radiation. Radiation moves at, or near the speed of light. An increase in CO2 should result in an immediate increase in downdewelling radiation and therfore a nearly instantaneous increase in temperature.

Funny thing is, though, that downdwelling radiation can't be measured at all unless the instrument has been cooled to a temperature far below the ambient. Explain that. And try doing it in your own words since you claimed to be able to discuss the topic.

LOLOLOL....it's really funny to watch ignorant retards try to 'reason' out science when their assumptions are based only on their ignorance.

 

[SSDD]

LOLOLOL....it's really funny to watch ignorant retards try to 'reason' out science when their assumptions are based only on their ignorance.

What is really funny is to see the guy who beleives he is the smartest guy in the room reduced to impotent insults and name calling because he is, in reality, completely unable to discuss the topic or answer any question that is not specifically laid out in the agw talking points script.

 

[Koios]

Yes, the grand old man has finally been forced to admit that the last ten years have been flat, global tempwise, further he also admits that 2012 was the NINTH warmest on record.

Must suck to be a braindead propagandist like oltrakrtrollingblunderfraud and have the leader of the cult come out and say it's all been a lie.

But, being the nice little useful idiots they are, they'll figure out a way to rationalise it all away.



Summary. Global surface temperature in 2012 was +0.56°C (1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 base period average, despite much of the year being affected by a strong La Nina. Global temperature thus continues at a high level that is sufficient to cause a substantial increase in the frequency of extreme warm anomalies. The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.
An update through 2012 of our global analysis1 (Fig. 1) reveals 2012 as having practically the same temperature as 2011, significantly lower than the maximum reached in 2010. These short-term global fluctuations are associated principally with natural oscillations of tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures summarized in the Nino index in the lower part of the figure. 2012 is nominally the 9th warmest year, but it is indistinguishable in rank with several other years, as shown by the error estimate.


So much for the claims of 2012 being the HOTTEST YEAR EVAH! Fools.




http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130115_Temperature2012.pdf

Didja read the PDF?

You do know the difference between 5-year-mean and "the last 10 years being flat," which is simply wrong. Yeah?

Also Fig 1 in the PDF should be very telling of the trend, showing a rapid warming of the planet, in a remarkable and unique upward trajectory.

And this snippet is pretty telling, too: "Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998." - Page 1, Para 2, Last Sentence.

 

[SSDD]

Also Fig 1 in the PDF should be very telling of the trend, showing a rapid warming of the planet, in a remarkable and unique upward trajectory.

Remarkable and unique upward trajectory? Are you kidding? You believe that in all of earth's history, the present period is unique with regard to climate. Here is a 400,000 photo courtesy of the vostok ice cores. There are multiple periods in just that short bit of geological time that make the present warming (15 years ago anyway) look like the merest blip on the radar.

 

[RollingThunder]

Perhaps an analogy would help you to understand this.

If you fill a large pot with water and put it on your gas stove burner, the flame is about 3000 degrees F. The boiling point of water is only 212 degrees. Why doesn't all the water flash into steam immediately? 3000 degrees is so much hotter than the boiling point. The answer is that it takes time for the heat from the very hot flame to permeate and heat the mass of the water. The water has what is called thermal inertia. The Earth's atmosphere masses about 5 quadrillion tons and it has thermal inertia too. The heat retained by the extra CO2 in the air is also passing into the oceans. The Earth's oceans have a volume of about 310 million cubic miles. That's some enormous thermal inertia there too. Just as it takes some time for a large pot of water to boil, so too does it take some time for the Earth's atmosphere and surface to warm.

Why don't you try an apt analogy. No matter how long you leave the water on the burner, it will never achieve a temperature of more than 212 degrees.

You don't seem to know what 'analogy' means, SSoooDDumb, so look it up. I mean, what do you imagine that your 'analogy' has to do with AGW? Has anyone ever said that the temperatures on Earth would continue to rise forever? There are no physical barriers stopping the average temperatures from rising to levels that would destroy our civilization and the Earth's ecology.

By the way, the atmosphere isn't warming, not for the past 15 years anyway in spite of steadily increasing CO2.

Repeating the myths of your little cult of reality denial won't actually make the temperature records go away.

Warmest years
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOAA graph of Global Annual Temperature Anomalies 1950–2012

The list of warmest years on record is dominated by years from this millennium; each of the last 12 years (2001–2012) features as one of the 14 warmest on record. Global temperatures are affected by the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), with the extremes of El Niño and La Niña leading respectively to unusually warm and cool years. 2010 as an El Niño topped the previous record set in the El Niño year of 1998. While 2012 as an La Niña year was cooler, it was still the 10th warmest year since records began in 1880. Over the more recent record, 2012 was the warmest "La Niña year" in the period from 1950 to 2012.[62]

Although the NCDC temperature record begins in 1880, less certain reconstructions of earlier temperatures suggest these years may be the warmest for several centuries to millennia.

10 warmest years on record (°C anomaly from 1901–2000 mean)
Year..........Global........Land........Ocean
2010.........0.6590......1.0748......0.5027
2005.........0.6523......1.0505......0.5007
1998.........0.6325......0.9351......0.5160
2003.........0.6219......0.8859......0.5207
2002.........0.6130......0.9351......0.4902
2006.........0.5978......0.9091......0.4792
2009.........0.5957......0.8621......0.4953
2007.........0.5914......1.0886......0.3900
2004.........0.5779......0.8132......0.4885
2012.........0.5728......0.8968......0.4509

The values in the table above are anomalies from the 1901–2000 global mean of 13.9°C.[66] For instance, the +0.59°C anomaly in 2007 added to the 1901–2000 mean of 13.9°C gives a global average temperature of 14.49 °C for 2007.[67]

The coolest year in the record was 1911.[63]

Warmest decades

1880-2011 Global annual and decadal mean surface temperature change. Data Source: NOAA

Numerous cycles have been found to influence annual global mean temperatures. The tropical El Niño-La Niña cycle and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation are the most well-known of these cycles.[68] An examination of the average global temperature changes by decades reveals continuing climate change.[69] Following chart is from NASA data of combined land-surface air and sea-surface water temperature anomalies.

Temp. anomaly from 1951–1980 mean
Years..................°C anomaly..........°F anomaly
1880–1889..........−0.274 °C...........−0.493 °F)
1890–1899..........−0.254 °C...........−0.457 °F)
1900–1909..........−0.259 °C...........−0.466 °F)
1910–1919..........−0.276 °C...........−0.497 °F)
1920–1929..........−0.175 °C...........−0.315 °F)
1930–1939..........−0.043 °C...........−0.0774 °F)
1940–1949...........-0.035 °C...........−0.0630 °F)
1950–1959..........−0.02 °C............−0.0360 °F)
1960–1969..........−0.014 °C...........−0.0252 °F)
1970–1979..........−0.001 °C...........−0.00180 °F)
1980–1989..........+0.176 °C.............+0.317 °F)
1990–1999..........+0.313 °C.............+0.563 °F)
2000–2009..........+0.513 °C.............+0.923 °F)

 

[Oddball]

No matter the big bold font, no matter how many pretty colored charts and graphs you post....

Correlation still doesn't equal causation.

 

[RollingThunder]

We do? So who received their PhD for figuring that one out. Provide a link and a full CV.

The poor ol' walleyedretard, like many of the denier cult nutjobs, is obsessed with the phrase "correlation does not equal causation" without understanding the meaning or realizing that a necessary word has been left out of that quote. The actual phrase used in science is "correlation does not necessarily equal causation". There are actually many examples of things that not only correlate strongly but also have a causal relationship. Correlation between two things does not in any way imply that a causal relationship is impossible or even improbable. Climate scientists do not, of course, think that correlation proves causation but they are aware that some of the factors in the Earth's climate systems that are strongly correlated with other factors are, in fact, being caused by those other factors. Causation is determined by analyzing everything involved and not just by looking at correlations but the correlations often give a hint as to possible causal factors.

Correlation does not imply causation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Correlation does not imply causation" is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that a correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other. [1][2] Many statistical tests calculate correlation between variables. A few go further and calculate the likelihood of a true causal relationship; examples are the Granger causality test and convergent cross mapping.

Use of correlation as scientific evidence

Much of scientific evidence is based upon a correlation of variables[17] – they tend to occur together. Scientists are careful to point out that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The assumption that A causes B simply because A correlates with B is a logical fallacy – it is not a legitimate form of argument. However, sometimes people commit the opposite fallacy – dismissing correlation entirely, as if it does not imply causation. This would dismiss a large swath of important scientific evidence.[17]

In conclusion, correlation is an extremely valuable type of scientific evidence in medicine. But first correlations must be confirmed as real, and then every possible causational relationship must be systematically explored. In the end correlation can be used as powerful evidence for a cause and effect relationship between a treatment and benefit, or a risk factor and a disease.

So, do you use huge fonts as a substitute for your peanut sized mbwebwe?

LOLOLOL.....they are called 'headlines', moron. All of the newspapers and magazines use them. Do you fantasize that all of the reporters and editors are compensating for tiny dicks? I personally use various forms of emphasis, like 'bold', large fonts and color, to try to get some accurate information through the thick skulls of tiny-brained retards like yourself. That's hard to do when cretins like you are masturbating and fantasizing about the penis size of other debaters.

So, Walleyed, do you use off topic diversions like this one as a substitute for actually acknowledging that your BS just got debunked? Or are you in denial about that too? LOLOLOL.

 

[Koios]

Also Fig 1 in the PDF should be very telling of the trend, showing a rapid warming of the planet, in a remarkable and unique upward trajectory.

Remarkable and unique upward trajectory? Are you kidding? You believe that in all of earth's history, the present period is unique with regard to climate. Here is a 400,000 photo courtesy of the vostok ice cores. There are multiple periods in just that short bit of geological time that make the present warming (15 years ago anyway) look like the merest blip on the radar.

Is that Fig 1 from the pdf?

 

[RollingThunder]

No matter the big bold font, no matter how many pretty colored charts and graphs you post....

Correlation still doesn't equal causation.

No matter how many ignorant idiotic meaningless posts you make, Screwball, you're still a clueless retard.

 

[Oddball]

No matter the big bold font, no matter how many pretty colored charts and graphs you post....

Correlation still doesn't equal causation.

No matter how many ignorant idiotic meaningless posts you make, Screwball, you're still a clueless retard.

I been wondering the same about you, clueless retard with big bold font and pretty colored charts and graphs.

 

[RollingThunder]

No matter the big bold font, no matter how many pretty colored charts and graphs you post....

Correlation still doesn't equal causation.

No matter how many ignorant idiotic meaningless posts you make, Screwball, you're still a clueless retard.

I been wondering the same about you, clueless retard with big bold font and pretty colored charts and graphs.

"....with big bold font and pretty colored charts and graphs" that you can't understand because you're a clueless retard. Your frustration with your own stupidity is understandable.

 

[Oddball]

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Phil Jones: Yes....

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online

 

[SSDD]

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Phil Jones: Yes....

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online

thunder et al believe if they make the fonts big enough and maybe call enough names, amd say it enough times, it will be true whether it actually is, or not. after all, gobells said so, didn't he?

 

[SSDD]

Also Fig 1 in the PDF should be very telling of the trend, showing a rapid warming of the planet, in a remarkable and unique upward trajectory.

Remarkable and unique upward trajectory? Are you kidding? You believe that in all of earth's history, the present period is unique with regard to climate. Here is a 400,000 photo courtesy of the vostok ice cores. There are multiple periods in just that short bit of geological time that make the present warming (15 years ago anyway) look like the merest blip on the radar.

Is that Fig 1 from the pdf?

Don't know what pdf you are talking about. It is just a graph showing temperature and atmospheric CO2 for the past 400,000 years according to the vostok ice cores.

 

[Old Rocks]

So it appears you don't know of any time in history where massive rises in CO2 predated massive rises in temperature by hundreds of years either.

Ok.

Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. Triassic-Jurassic Extinction event. Permian-Triassic Extinction event.

Methane catastrophe

The PETM was an "extinction event" for a very few benthic forams. The cause of their death is most likely anoxia (not that facts will ever disturb you) and the rest of the biosphere bloomed. Mammals that exist today evolved during the PETM and dispersed throughout the planet. If that's your idea of a "extinction event" let's have another.

Ever consider fully reading the conversation, Walleyes? So here it is;

So it appears you don't know of any time in history where massive rises in CO2 predated massive rises in temperature by hundreds of years either.

Ok.
Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. Triassic-Jurassic Extinction event. Permian-Triassic Extinction event.

Methane catastrophe

The question concerned a rise in GHGs prior to warming. I gave some known examples. Two of them happened to be major extinction events, also.