What Do We Think About Climate Change

If carbon (CO2) didn’t warm us, what did?

 

Carbon (CO2)levels have been much higher

 

“I used to think carbon dioxide
was bad too, then I found out
the other half of the story, and
it shocked me.” JoNova

 

Yup, but it could be of a tiiiny bit of interest to know; humans as we consider that species to be/ operate at the present time, was not around at that time, and we probably couldn't either, not in any significant numbers/ quantity probably...

..... That if if you mean Corbon dioxide.......


The level of Carbon, on the other hand, stays pretty fixed...No matter what some says..... On that I'm pretty unbiased/ 100% objective etc... (As is; "the truth is mine..".)

 

Prove me wrong: CO2 in fact lags temperature even in the short term

We have seen in post 8655 ("last post first" setting) that the steadily increasing CO2 concentrarions during last decades (with a part of them being anthropogenic, of course) do not match the more variable temperature behaviour.

Now let's see what happens with the shorter cycles during those decades. I have posted this before a little while ago, but it deserved no useful commentaries from any of the anthropogenic-co2-forcing supporters here (ACOFS).

Statement:
CO2 variations don't precede temperature changes, but lag them. Not only by the evidence from paleoclimatic records, but also from the most recent ones.


See attached graph where it is evident a lag of around seven months between short term temperature cycles and CO2 variations when comparing data from Mauna Loa (since 1958) and HC3v temperature anomalies data (if you run HC3 instead of HC3v lag is indistinctly the same)

Perhaps Alan could do me the favour of running the same data with his program and check results against this. Or then any other ACOF here wanting to devote some personal graphing effort for the sake of this thread.

Cheers.

 

Knut, I thought you would be more clever than to make a "grammar objection" and include a spelling mistake. Corbon?

As for your first paragraph...What is your point?

 

I disagree. The hokey stick based on one tree disprooves that.

 

The one flaw that wipes out the crisis

 

I wish you guys would stop telling us what a wonderful thing carbon dioxide is.

Horse manure is great stuff, too. But if you put too much of it on your rose bushes, they die....

 

Not with CO2. The more we put into the atmosphere, the more able is the planet to sustain the growing humankind (6700 millions and counting). Life has thrieved on Earth with athmospheric CO2 levels ten times the present ones and presently is greening with the late increase in CO2 concentration and mild temperatures.

P.S.
And life has thrieved on Earth also with temperatures several degrees higher than present ones. If I'm wrong and CO2 contributes significantly to warming, I'll be most happy as that will rather protect than threaten us. As a matter of fact, several ACOFS from the scientific camp have popped up lately saying CO2 is already protecting us from the next little Ice Age.

 

Baloney. Too much of a good thing is a bad thing. I shouldn't even have to say that.

We're talking about the continued comfortable existence of human beings, not what was survivable for primitive amniotes millions of years ago.

And that ******** about CO2 protecting us from the next ice age? That's all it is: ********.

You deniers keep changing your story. One day the earth isn't warming at all; the next day it's warming but it isn't our fault; the day after that, warming is a blessed event that we should be thanking God for. Make up your friggen minds....

 

Are you serious? You might as well be saying that it's ridiculous to worry about drowning, because our bodies are mostly made of water to begin with.

 

well its only missing the last year or two of data and unless the place turned into an ice cube and no one noticed the trends depicted in that graph are still valid points given the subject

I assume your trying to bring up the issue of thickening in the Antarctic ice sheet, which is a result of higher humidity/precipitation because of higher temps melting more ice off the edge of the continent, all in all very small gain or mere redistribution of ice but certainly not any great gains when compared to the dramatic melt off of the Arctic ice sheet mass

also a good arguement has been made to suggest that the presumed gain in the antarctic ice sheet thickness is not based on a corresponding increase in density
IE if ice that has been compressed over long periods of time melts and gets redistributed as snow which takes a while to re-compress and become of similar density. If we only measure mass by virtue of thickness and not take into account density which is how they are measuring the ice sheet then you would get a skewed view of the actual amount new ice being formed.

as can be seen in the most recent two years of arctic ice data the trend has not changed



here is a very good visual on the two data sets one from the arctic and one from the antarctic



obviously if you were to draw a trend line of the two data sets you would see a falling trend not a rising one
which makes sense given the warming we have seen in these last few decades