Congress to slash funding for Global Warming research at NASA

It's not positive feedback this time?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Scientists confirm positive CO2 feedback​

You should get on the same page as the other CAGW folk.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is an initiating cause this time AND a positive feedback.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you don't see the problem with assuming the current warming trend must have the same initiating factor as all the past ones, nobody can help you.

Not this time. This time the CO2 boost had a different cause, and so it does not lag the warming.

That's not true. The ocean absorbs far too much heat relative to the air for that.

And it's not relevant: the continuing warming of the ocean completely eliminates any erroneously described "hiatus" in the current global warming. It never happened.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Increased greenhouse gasses create warming, which then results in the release of more greenhouse gasses.

 

Can you support that claim?

What evidence can you show that demonstrates CO2 leads warming?

There would have to be some uptake in the ocean warming rate to account for an atmosphere warming hiatus.

Infinite regress?

 

Feedback loops.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback

 

If we are concern about CO2, Should we consider shopping production of beer , carbonated beverage and production of dry ice ?

 

Beer is a necessity to civilization.

 

It doesn't have to. I don't care. The CO2 boost is a measured fact and its source reliably established, the effects of it theoretically inevitable in general, solidly predicted in several specifics, and ubiquitously measured in agreement with theory and prediction by everybody who's been careful and rigorous.

Not a measurable one. The ocean is very large and complex, and the heat capacity of water very much larger than air.

All kinds of possibilities abound. There could be, for example, a temporary alteration of heat distribution so that the surface waters no longer warmed the air as much. The addition of very cold meltwater from Greenland and Antarctica could easily swamp such a small signal (they've been underestimating the melt all along, which means underestimating the heat absorbed in the phase change). Or the extra heat could have been temporarily churned into a less closely measured part of the ocean. Or whatever. Why do you care? It's a technical detail, let the pros figure it out.

 

As usual, you refuse to support your own claims. The best you ever offer is a vague appeal to unnamed authority.

So again, no evidence. Just a lot of vague arm-waving. And again, dismissing things with another appeal to authority.

If you can't make the case, what are you doing in this thread? Just parroting and regurgitating a lot of pop-sci articles you vaguely remember reading?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Funny how we can definitely determine so much about climate change, but the minute you're asked for specifics, it suddenly becomes too "complex".

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Of course.

CO2 is causing warming:
=============
New estimates of radiative forcing due to well mixed greenhouse gases

First published: 15 July 1998
Geophysical Research Letters

Abstract
We have performed new calculations of the radiative forcing due to changes in the concentrations of the most important well mixed greenhouse gases (WMGG) since pre-industrial time. Three radiative transfer models are used. The radiative forcing due to CO2, including shortwave absorption, is 15% lower than the previous IPCC estimate. The radiative forcing due to all the WMGG is calculated to 2.25 Wm−2, which we estimate to be accurate to within about 5%. The importance of the CFCs is increased by about 20% relative to the total effect of all WMGG compared to previous estimates. We present updates to simple forcing-concentration relationships previously used by IPCC.
==================================


CO2 is a feedback as well:
================
News in Science

Scientists confirm positive CO2 feedback
Thursday, 28 January 2010 Anna Salleh
ABC Science

Scientists have calculated the most accurate estimate to date on how rising temperatures will trigger the release of more CO2 from the ocean and land, further amplifying the greenhouse effect.

But some experts warn it still won't tell us exactly what will happen to the planet as CO2 in the atmosphere continue to rise.

Palaeoclimatologist Dr David Frank of the Swiss Federal Research Institute in Birmensdorf and colleagues report their findings in today's issue of the journal Nature.

"It's well known that the CO2 increase will cause a temperature increase," says Frank.

"But what also happens is that you have increased temperatures that causes the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere to also release more CO2 into the atmosphere."

This additional CO2 acts to further increase the temperature in what is sometimes called a "positive feedback" loop.

Frank and colleagues analysed the most comprehensive collection of records to date on temperatures and atmospheric CO2 from ice cores prior to the industrial revolution - between 1050 and 1800.

"We found that for every degree of warming, the CO2 concentration increased by [a median of] 7.7 parts per million," says Frank.

The researchers calculated the increase in CO2 concentration during that period ranged from 1.7 to 21.4 parts per million per degree Celsius.
======================

 

Hmmm....plants would decrease the CO2 in the atmosphere .

 

I made no claims there. Those were all your claims; you're the only one here worried about whether the CO2 is leading or lagging or - as now - matching the initial onset of warming. Nobody else cares.

You require evidence that the ocean is large, and that water has a much higher specific heat than air?
Your claim was that any hiatus in atmospheric warming caused by ocean absorption would have to be visible as a significant boost in ocean temps. You have no evidence for that, and it looks false by inspection.
Meanwhile:

- - - -

And they have been doing that. The algae in the ocean are perhaps more important. What happens next is still being discussed.

 

Climate change has always occurred on the earth. The earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling and new records are set somewhere everyday. This is based on hundreds of millions of years of data, and not just the past 100 years.

It is possible that the manmade assumption, behind climate change, is part of a magic trick. As an analogy for the trick, picture an elephant, with a harness, hanging from a large spring. The elephant slowly goes up and down. What I will do is enter the scene, at a time of the spring cycle, when the spring is pulling the elephant upward. I will pretend to lift the elephant with my finger. If I can deny the long term up and down cycles of the spring, and get everyone to see the upward motion as a unique event connected to me, I can become the world's strongest man in the eyes of the gullible.

NASA is losing funding connected to the elephant trick. It will have to earmark future funding towards its original mission; space exploration.

 

You know you don't discuss anything, but use the forum like your own personal blog. And I doubt you thought of that analogy yourself.

 

Not this fast. Only a few meteor strikes can compare with a 40%+ boost in atmospheric CO2 in a hundred years.

 

Now you are just being silly, those sources are tiny compared to burning fossil fuels.

 

I know that. But since the big concern of CO2 than take everything into account. How about Methane which is generated on the bottom of the sea, pork farms, big city sanitation plants, ete. ete.

 

How about supporting something substantial, like international carbon limits?

 

Well, "methane from the bottom of the sea" - can't do much about that; as the oceans warm more methane will be released.

But we could certainly do something about all the other sources.