GW alarmists passages still blocked.

[macdoc]

And how the hell can you not know by now, that historical CO2 levels FOLLOW temperature, rather than lead it?
In other words, CO2 rises and falls with ocean temperatures, quite naturally, because the ocean holds more in solution more when it's cold?
Or did you forget?

Fuck how many times do you need to be told....C02 can be be both a feedback and a forcing.
YOU are describing a feedback where there is no source of additional C02 outside of the carbon cycle.

WE have put in 40% more C02 from fossil fuel burning into that cycle.
That is a forcing

If you can't even comprehend basics then stop pretending your assinine denial is science based, it's not.
It's ignorance based.

How many times does this need to be presented to you....

CO2 as a Feedback and Forcing in the Climate System
Zeke Hausfather —

A fundamental misconception about the role that carbon dioxide plays in glacial transitions has helped fuel the argument that the lag time between temperature and CO2 in the paleoclimate record casts doubt on carbon dioxide as an important greenhouse gas.
It’s crucial that media reporting on climate change understand an important distinction between the dual roles of greenhouse gases as both forcings and feedbacks.
In the geologic past, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases acted primarily as feedbacks to external climate forcings. Our current and basically unprecedented experience is that we as humans are directly emitting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that affect climate change.
That distinction – greenhouse gases as both forcings and feedbacks – is critical in understanding the behavior of these gases in the paleoclimatic and present periods.

more
http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2 ... te-system/

A fundamental misconception.....EXACTLY what you exhibit and you repeat the same error over and over......

Move on to something you might have a faint hope of understanding...like what you ate for breakfast....you should be up for that.....tho one wonders at times.

[Hermit]

Discovery #1: CO2 concentrations lag global warming by 700-900 years. Solution: CO2 emissions do not start global warming, but eventually they amplify it.

Discovery #2: No global warming detected in the atmosphere during the past couple of decades. Solution: Global warming has recently developed a stealth attack. It now bypasses the atmosphere and goes straight into the oceans.

Post hoc rationalisations overload alert.

Note: I actually believe that global warming does occur, and that some of it may well be due to industrialisation, but I also regard most global warming scientists as quasi religious fundamentalists. They believe in The Truth™ and spin stories in Biblical proportions. Crusaders like Phil Jones are prominent among those who actually provide a disservice to the acceptance of a phenomenon that could very well be real.

[mistermack]

A good example of the quasi religious approach is in what Tero posted.

Scientists drilling ice cores and posting their results find CO2 levels following temperature up and down pretty accurately, with a 900 year time lag. Nothing wrong with that, it's what you would expect, with the oceans outgassing, when warm, and absorbing CO2 when colder.

But that's a major embarrassment for the natural warming deniers, so, now that they know the ANSWER that they want, they re-examine the data, choose what they like, discard what they don't like, do a few back flips and double-salkos, and, hey presto, we have results that NEARLY show CO2 leading temps.
Feedback mechanisms are part of the same art. When the facts show the opposite of what you want, throw in a good feedback mechanism. You'll soon have black showing as white.

It's very like the creationists. They know the answer that they want, and work towards that.

[Hermit]

It's very like the creationists. They know the answer that they want, and work towards that.

Exactly. Not that that anthropomorphic global morphing does not exist, but if it does, the crusaders for the cause are not going about the way the right way of proving that it does. Post hoc addenda are not particularly scientific for the precise reason that they are untestable.

I should not even have used the term post hoc. Ad hoc is more appropriate and sheds the global warming crusaders in an even worse light: "In science and philosophy, ad hoc means the addition of extraneous hypothesis to a theory to save it from being falsified. Ad hoc hypotheses compensate for anomalies not anticipated by the theory in its unmodified form."

[Tero]

The "natural" warming isn't there in the short time we are looking at for the observed warming. It's not Milankovitch its not volcanoes. Nothing. There is no measurable natural source that accounts for 1800-2000. Milankovitch is always there but it takes tens of thousands of years.

[mistermack]

The "natural" warming isn't there in the short time we are looking at for the observed warming. It's not Milankovitch its not volcanoes. Nothing. There is no measurable natural source that accounts for 1800-2000. Milankovitch is always there but it takes tens of thousands of years.

Well, human-produced CO2 certainly doesn't account for any of the warming from 1800 to 1950. Because the concentration in the atmosphere had hardly changed by 1950.

So what else could that warming be, but natural?

[Tero]

There is only one source, CO2, in the past 200 years. Up to you to come up with the source. I have mine.

If you look at the graphs of temps, the ones you dismiss as guessing, the up and down wiggles are the slight variations in the sun, the volcanoes, the el nino years. The natural is ONLY the wiggles plus any short flat areas.

[Tero]

Was that too complicated? Let's bring it to middle school level, mm. Show me a mechanism how the sun warms the atmosphere without using CO2.

Water vapor just brings it to a constant temperature where it stays till Milakovitch brings the sun closer. In 40 000 years.

[mistermack]

Was that too complicated? Let's bring it to middle school level, mm. Show me a mechanism how the sun warms the atmosphere without using CO2.

You don't express your questions very well. The direct answer is not in any particular order and not complete by any means :
1) Convection
2) Water vapour as a greenhouse gas
3) Condensation of water vapour, that evaporated using the Sun's heat
4) Clouds acting as a greenhouse
5) Solar energy stored by photosynthesis eventually being released to the environment by microbes and animals.
6) Cheese

[Tero]

Let's be more specific: raises the global temperature. None of your items do that. Plant life does nothing other than remove CO2, which lowers the temperature. The entire carbon cycle maintains a constant level of CO2.

[mistermack]

Let's be more specific: raises the global temperature. None of your items do that. Plant life does nothing other than remove CO2, which lowers the temperature. The entire carbon cycle maintains a constant level of CO2.

Tero, it does nothing of the sort. Wasn't it you who linked to the ice-core data, showing the rises and falls in CO2 levels going back hundreds of thousands of years?

As well as in and out-gassing of the ocean, you have hard shelled organisms fixing CO2 in the oceans, you have volcanoes spouting CO2 above and below sea level, and you have mountains being eroded by acid rain, trapping CO2.

It volatile and complicated, there is no constant level.

[Tero]

"Carbon cycle" is a biology term. It has to do with how much CO2 is processed by plants, animals and all ocean life. Within the year over one hemisphere there is variation, but over say 100 years, averaged, there is not much change.

You are just throwing in the old you can't measure trick.

[macdoc]

Tero, it does nothing of the sort. Wasn't it you who linked to the ice-core data, showing the rises and falls in CO2 levels going back hundreds of thousands of years?

As well as in and out-gassing of the ocean, you have hard shelled organisms fixing CO2 in the oceans, you have volcanoes spouting CO2 above and below sea level, and you have mountains being eroded by acid rain, trapping CO2.

It volatile and complicated, there is no constant level.

More crock from the crock expert who to quote GoT "you know nothing"

The CO2 levels for the Holocene which is the only meaningful period as far as humans and the current biome are concerned have were around 280 ppm prior to the industrial.

We have now raised that to 400 ppm heading to 500 in just 300 years and the latter in a hundred or less by burning fossil fuels.

The last time the planet had levels like this is million years ago

Climate Milestone: Earth's CO2 Level Nears 400 ppm
news.nationalgeographic.com/.../130510-earth-co2-milestone-400-ppm/
May 9, 2013 -snip

The last time the concentration of Earth's main greenhouse gas reached this mark, horses and camels lived in the high Arctic. Seas were at least 30 feet higher—at a level that today would inundate major cities around the world.

The planet was about 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer. But the Earth then was in the final stage of a prolonged greenhouse epoch, and CO2 concentrations were on their way down. This time, 400 ppm is a milepost on a far more rapid uphill climb toward an uncertain climate future

88888

snip
The last time the concentration of CO2 was as high as 400 ppm was probably in the Pliocene Epoch, between 2.6 and 5.3 million years ago. Until the 20th century, it certainly hadn't exceeded 300 ppm, let alone 400 ppm, for at least 800,000 years. That's how far back scientists have been able to measure CO2 directly in bubbles of ancient air trapped in Antarctic ice cores.

But tens of millions of years ago, CO2 must have been much higher than it is now—there's no other way to explain how warm the Earth was then. In the Eocene, some 50 million years ago, there were alligators and tapirs on Ellesmere Island, which lies off northern Greenland in the Canadian Arctic. They were living in swampy forests like those in the southeastern United States today. CO2 may have been anywhere from two to ten times higher in the Eocene than it is today. (See related: "Hothouse Earth.")

so since you grudgingly admitted CO2 traps IR

Now stop with the fucking denial crap.......

It's getting warmer
We're responsible

THAT is reality.

Discuss what to do about it instead of this seriously brain dead denial.

[Tero]

So in conclusion, CO2 traps IR rays, but we have absolutely no idea where this CO2 is coming from. According to mistermack.

[macdoc]

drunkards walk obviously