Skip to comments.
Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling
Forbes.com ^
| 31MAY2012
| Peter Ferrara
Posted on 02/03/2013 5:03:35 PM PST by Jack Hydrazine
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-74 next last
To: Tennessee Nana
Sounds like the Gore Effect keeps effecting!
21
posted on
02/03/2013 5:53:48 PM PST
by
Jack Hydrazine
(It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
To: dhs12345
Well, clearly the factor that lags behind is not the causal one.
That would kind of stand the notion of linear time on its head.
22
posted on
02/03/2013 5:56:32 PM PST
by
TigersEye
(The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
To: 21twelve
Yes, temperature leads CO2 by about 800 or so years.
23
posted on
02/03/2013 5:58:16 PM PST
by
Jack Hydrazine
(It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
To: TigersEye
I wonder if they will even touch it. Probably not.
Algorezeera. Lol.
24
posted on
02/03/2013 5:59:05 PM PST
by
dhs12345
To: TigersEye
Leave it to the “scientists” to twist the theories and data to fit the politics.
Such as the increase in temperature was from the last increase in CO2 or some silly bs like that.
Or the bad economy is still Bush’s fault and will still be Bush’s fault for the next 20 years.
25
posted on
02/03/2013 6:08:12 PM PST
by
dhs12345
To: DManA
The record shows that CO2 concentration follow changes in temperature. So I would feel perfectly confident predicting that if temperatures keep falling in a few years CO2 will start to fall too. I don't think you want that. If we had not been around, the oceans would have released 5-10 ppm of CO2 from the rise in temperature from the Little Ice Age (about 1C). Instead we have had over 110 ppm rise and still rising. To absorb 5-10 ppm they would have to drop 1C (which would be very bad). For the oceans to absorb 50-100 would require them to drop at least 10C from current temperatures. Very very bad.
26
posted on
02/03/2013 6:14:32 PM PST
by
palmer
(Obama = Carter + affirmative action)
To: dhs12345
I wouldn't be too hard on scientists. Check my link in post #16. Those are scientists unraveling the BS of the Glowbull Warming hacks. It's more complicated than my 'dead cat tied to a bumper' joke but temperature does move first and CO2 levels follow it.
It is clear in the long term...
And in the short term...
27
posted on
02/03/2013 6:18:48 PM PST
by
TigersEye
(The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
To: TigersEye
Looking at your chart the change in CO2 per degree change in temperature is about 10 to 1 (10 ppm for 1C change). But we have had over 100 ppm change (we’re now above 390). So the temperature can no longer be “dragging” CO2 behind it (that would require over 10C temperature rise). But rather CO2 is just going up because we are releasing it. It doesn’t have much effect on temperature because temperature reaches a peak based on convection and outgoing radiation (modulated by weather which is mostly solar controlled).
28
posted on
02/03/2013 6:20:44 PM PST
by
palmer
(Obama = Carter + affirmative action)
To: dhs12345
See my previous post. An increase of global temperature causes about 10ppm rise in CO2, maybe a bit more. That’s what would have happened as we warmed from the Little Ice Age to now. Instead there has been over 110 ppm rise in CO2 and still rising 2-3 ppm per year. Temperature is not pulling CO2 up anymore, CO2 is rising because we are releasing it.
29
posted on
02/03/2013 6:23:06 PM PST
by
palmer
(Obama = Carter + affirmative action)
To: palmer
I should have said "An increase of global temperature of 1C causes about 10ppm rise in CO2, maybe a bit more."
30
posted on
02/03/2013 6:25:03 PM PST
by
palmer
(Obama = Carter + affirmative action)
To: palmer
What is the percentage of the human contribution to CO2 and natural CO2?
31
posted on
02/03/2013 6:34:53 PM PST
by
dhs12345
To: palmer
I think the article I linked to gets into that a little bit. Another point it makes is that the longer a warming period results in a slower cooling period afterward. One speculation is that the higher CO2 level slows the cooling period. But the author is honest enough to say that it’s not clear that that is the case and other factors need to be explored. In any case he says “I have not found a single situation where a significant raise of CO2 is accompanied by significant temperature rise- WHEN NOT PRECEDED BY TEMPERATURE RISE.”
32
posted on
02/03/2013 6:41:32 PM PST
by
TigersEye
(The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
To: TigersEye
Okay. Makes sense. Generally.
In all of the discussions, I haven’t heard anyone ask — “how accurate is the data, how accurate are the models, what assumptions did you make and approximations did you make, and therefore how accurate are the results?” With what kind of accuracy can you predict global temperatures tomorrow, a week from today, an month from now and a year from now.
Science is never precise and exact. Only estimates and approximations... probabilities. Especially, with excessively complex systems as the climate. We are being told that AGW is a done deal; it is an absolute, indisputable, without question.
33
posted on
02/03/2013 6:49:14 PM PST
by
dhs12345
To: DManA
Please provide the source of your data or speculation.
34
posted on
02/03/2013 6:53:05 PM PST
by
Buffalo Head
(Illigitimi non carborundum)
To: Jack Hydrazine
I am still waiting for Al Gore to hold a press conference with answers to the recent antartic like weather the US experienced last week.
To: TigersEye
Okay, another question. Sorry.
The below graph only shows CO2 concentration. Not cause and effect.
Suppose the cause is not increased production of CO2 but whatever mechanism or process that consumes it.
36
posted on
02/03/2013 7:02:17 PM PST
by
dhs12345
To: Buffalo Head
37
posted on
02/03/2013 7:08:43 PM PST
by
DManA
To: Seventh_Tiger
Let him explain this, too!
Arctic Ice Growth Shatters Previous Records
Arctic ice area growth since mid-September has shattered the previous record, growing 175,000 Manhattans of new ice over the last four months, says Steven Goddard.
Have you seen this anywhere in the mainstream media?
In related news... http://iceagenow.info/2013/01/severe-blizzard-eastern-romania-video/ Severe blizzard in Eastern Romania Video
38
posted on
02/03/2013 7:11:37 PM PST
by
Jack Hydrazine
(It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
To: Seventh_Tiger
39
posted on
02/03/2013 7:12:50 PM PST
by
Jack Hydrazine
(It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
To: TigersEye
http://www.skepticalscience.com/skakun-co2-temp-lag.html
I offer this for your viewing pleasure, note I don't actually buy what the link claims.
Its fun though. Polar CO2 Temps are not indicative of global temps when they need to get past the co2 lagging temps issue but then as soon as they are clear of that the melting ice is proof positive of global warming.
Its enough to make a polar bear want to take a swim.
40
posted on
02/03/2013 7:21:02 PM PST
by
wonkowasright
(Wonko from outside the asylum)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-74 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson