>>In the past, the CO2 changes FOLLOWED the temp changes.<<
NO – In the past CO2 HAS lagged temperature – and it has LED temperature.
You guys take the first 800 years of a 5,000-year long event (the last 4,000+ years of which does not support your claims) from one set of data representing global CO2 and temperature at one specific point and declare that it applies over all time and space – but, you deny thousands of independent records of empirical evidence from physics, chemistry, biology, and geology used in thousands of studies by thousands of scientists from all over the world – not to mention the scientific laws and theories that support and explain AGW and the empirical data.
”Global Warming Preceded by Increasing Carbon Dioxide Concentrations During the Last Deglaciation”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v48...
“Global climate evolution during the last deglaciation”
http://ic.ucsc.edu/~acr/ocea285/articles...
“Analytical solution for the effect of increasing CO2 on global mean temperature”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v31...
=====
Zippi62 ---
>>("suggests" and "abouts")<<
What a surprise that you do not recognize real scientific skepticism when you see it given every Denier's faith in stupid certainty.
No one cares that you hate and reject science. It's the pretending to care and know anything about anything that does, Deniers are the most shameless liars - and tell the most pathetically stupid lies - of anyone over the age of 10.
Hey - If you want to reduce co2, I'm right there with you. I think we should build around 400 more nuclear power generators in this country, and explore the possibility of powering cars with nuclear batteries. I just don't believe the planet is warming like you do. I don't accept your faith. However if you can show me how you came to your conclusion that the planet is going to be warmer in 5 years, I'm listening.
I doubt that you will ever understand the limitations of CO2 warming. Maybe you should do a calculation as to how much extra heat CO2 adds to our atmosphere when CO2 levels increase from 280ppm to 400ppm (an addition of 1.2 parts per 10,000 or a 0.012% change) in our atmosphere?
Please show your work!
When you get to the part where the 0.012% change in the atmosphere has more than a 0.1C forcing, you had better take a step backwards and re-check your work.
Thanks for another "Climate Clown" question from the peanut gallery!
--------------------------
From Gary F's worthless link : " ... Recent model studies suggest that the equilibrium warming for a CO2 doubling (Δ T 2×) is about 3–4°C2–4. ... "
And who wrote that conclusive analogy? Another Climate Clown looking for attention?
Hey Gary? Does that mean GCMs are totally accurate now? If they "suggest" that the equilibrium warming for doubling is "about" x degrees, that means they are correct?
It's no wonder why people who believe in simple inferences as facts ("suggests" and "abouts") are driving almost everyone into being a skeptic.
Yes we realize that, Man is adding to CO2 in the atmosphere, which is a good thing, we are living in a world where nature has used up so much CO2 that we were at the point of CO2 starvation, below 150ppm plants die, and therefore animals too.280ppm was much too low, 400ppm is better, but 800 to 1000ppm would be much better, giving us a greener more productive planet.http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/1...
Anyway a new paper suggest the equilibrium warming for a doubling of CO2 is only 0.43 degrees C http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/news-ca...
Sure, we realize that. But so what? Man-made CO2 is very small compared to natural CO2. And even with CO2 levels at the highest levels in thousands of years (according to Alarmists) the world is STILL NOT WARMING.
So let's be thankful we have abundant coal to burn so we can have abundant and affordable energy to make our lives better.
-----------------------
Then why doesn't Al Gore sell his mansion, and live in a 2br ranch house?
In the past, the CO2 changes FOLLOWED the temp changes. Temp increases would presumably increase sea temp and warmers seas would hold less CO2. Hence warmer temp leading to more CO2.
If the temp drive the CO2 levels and not the other way around, then artificially increasing the CO2 levels will not necessarily increase the temps.
I think it goes both ways. BUT I think that means that the climate scientists are therefore overestimating climate sensitivity to CO2. In fact, there climate sensitivity would necessarily be a maximum climate sensitivity with the minimum being zero warming from CO2 and the truth lying somewhere in between.
They are certainly wrong as shown in 95% of their models overestimating, but the question is how wrong.
Either way, I have yet to see even the most ardent "deniers" claim that CO2 is not increasing or even that man is not the cause of most of the increase. So your question is rather silly and shows that you do not wish to engage in an honest discussion, but instead throw around false allegations and stupidity like "don't have a job or not working" crap.
Edit:
Jeff M,
Consider the following two scenarios:
1.) A closed container holding cola and air. If you heat the container, then CO2 comes out of the cola, thus your air temp and air CO2 conc both increase. This would purely be "temp -> CO2" as the CO2 is not causing temp increases. This represents the sea.
2.) Two closed containers, both holding air and both exposed to sunlight. One container has more CO2 and is thus hotter. This would be purely "CO2 -> temp" as the temp increase is not causing any increase in CO2. This would represent the greenhouse effect portion.
In the past, man had no effect, so when measuring the correlation between CO2 and temps, you are capturing both "temp -> CO2" and "CO2 -> temp".
When you artificially add CO2 to the climate, however, that CO2 is not caused by a rise in temps, but by man. All of the CO2 added by man would just hit the "CO2 -> temp" portion.
So using the past correlation that had both "CO2 -> temp" AND "temp -> CO2" in predicting the current scenario of just "CO2 -> temp" with much less "temp ->CO2", you are going to overestimate the climate sensitivity to CO2.
So which was stronger in the past? "CO2 -> temp" or "temp -> CO2".
The "deniers" are saying that since CO2 lagged behind temp rises by 800 years. The temp rises eventually caused the ocean temps to rise, leading to more CO2 in the atmosphere, thus the entirety of the correlation was "temp -> CO2". Thus the assumption that correlation in the past can be used to show "CO2 -> temp" is entirely bogus.
I personally think this is wrong. I think the oceans take longer to heat up and thus the past correlation was caused by both "CO2 ->temp" and "temp -> CO2". This still means the climate sensitivity is overestimated, BUT it does not mean CO2 causes no increase in temps.
If we assume "CO2 ->temp" and "temp -> CO2 effects were exactly equal in the past, then the true climate sensitivity would be more than half of the current estimates from just correlation. More than half and not exactly half because you would still have the feedback of warmer seas also adding CO2. Hence my estimates of around 1-1.5 degrees by 2100.
jello, and most AGW deniers, say over and over and over again that, "We can see from the Vostock ice data that even while the temperatures start to decline, co2 levels continue to increase for about 800 years proving that co2 levels follow temperatures, not the other way around."
Do global warming deniers not understand that burning coal puts more CO2 into the atmosphere?
Are global warming deniers not able to read, and understand, the Keeling Curve?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve
Do AGW deniers think that just because plants and animals transfer CO2 and oxygen back and forth, that negates the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere?
What is it that makes AGW deniers think that the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 won't have any effect in climate?
