Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The simple fact that the surface of the Earth warms isn't being debated.
We all know surface temperatures vary over time.
The reasons why it does is another matter as it doesn't appear to be related to CO2 levels in any significant way.
The CAGW crowd seems to believe that warming alone validates their assertion that increased CO2 significantly influences surface temperatures.
My assertion, and the point to this thread, is that additions to small concentrations of CO2 have significant consequences that decrease in magnitude as CO2 levels increase.
Your side claims a little CO2 added to that which already exists will have a measurable effect, but that doesn't appear to be the case since recent increases in CO2 have not been accompanied by temperature increases.
In fact, the history of Earth's atmospheric CO2 suggests that the effects of adding CO2 beyond a small amount - let's say 200 ppm - has a more or less imperceptible effect and that this effect virtually disappears as the concentration of CO2 increases beyond that.
"In prehistoric times, during the Permian, in the Palaeozoic Era, for example, the concentration of Carbon Dioxide dropped below 210 ppmV. Throughout the Permian Period plant and animal species diverged and diversified as never before. Dinosaurs prospered and predominated over all the other orders of vertebrates. Coniferous plants first appeared in the Permian. The change of atmospheric temperature at the time of the Permian was around 10 °C. By comparison, the current change of global temperature is only 0.52 °C while the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide is 385 ppmV. If the global temperature is dependent on CO2, then the change of temperature at present would be around 10 °C or higher, as it was during the Permian Period."
Moreover, large changes in surface temperatures have occurred when CO2 levels remained stable and changes in CO2 concentrations have been accompanied by either no change in temperature or the opposite of what alarmists claim should happen.
What is clear from the record is that CO2 is released from the oceans as temperatures rise and that the same CO2 is reabsorbed when temperature decline.
The release of CO2 when existing levels are 100 ppm and climbing to 300 ppm doesn't force temperatures higher or cause further release of CO2.
This means there is no "runaway greenhouse effect" and that CO2 is simply along for the ride.
I amuses me every time I read one of these threads by a global warming denialist. It amuses me because with every post they reveal just how little they understand the science behind climate change.
Hmmm... so you cherry pick your years to compare while others cherry pick theirs. Who get's to decide what years to cherry pick? You?
I cherry pick nothing...I generally rely on the temperature change from the pre-industrial era till the present which shows an increase of over 0.8C degrees....1998 till today is too short a period of time to indicate anything.
The worst effects of AGW are still in the future......Between 1992 and 2010, the Greenland ice sheet lost an average of 12.9 billion tons of mass a year, Dr. Dumont and colleagues note, in their study published June 8 in the journal Nature Geoscience. Currently the ice sheet is losing between 200 billion and 450 billion tons a year. The team estimates that the additional loss from dust's effect adds another 27 billion tons a year to these losses.
The Earth and Venus are about the same size, made up of mostly the same stuff and both lie in the Suns so called Goldilocks zone for a g-class star like the Sun (as does Mars). The only difference is that Earth suffered a fenderbender with a 5th terrestrial planet (often called Thea), this crash rearranged Earth, created the Moon set the Earth spinning like a billiard ball and added iron to the Earths core making it big enough to have a liquid iron shell around the core. Giving the Earth a powerful magnetic field and safely shieldiong us from nasty radiation from space and the sun and prevented the loss of its atmospheric gases like Mars or hydrogen like Venus. The amount of carbon is the same in both Venus and the Earth the problem is its almost all in gaseous form of CO2 and CO in the case of Venus. If Earth hadnt by wacked by Thea, Venus and the Earth would likely be fraternal twins both Hot and lifeless and life never would have survived here. That we are here and Earth is an abode of live is one of those flukes maybe not repeated within thousands of light years of distance. Just how rare is Earth?
"If we were to double the rate at which CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing in comparison to the last 30 years, it would still take well over a century to get to just two degrees of warming from CO2. If we tripled the rate, it would take almost four centuries to get to three degrees."
The author of your source lists their name as "Poker."
According to real sources like the EPA, "Average global temperatures are expected to increase by 2°F to 11.5°F by 2100, depending on the level of future greenhouse gas emissions."
Corporations like ExxonMobile and CEO's like the Koch brothers pay groups to say "global warming is a hoax", they do this because if we combat global warming large corporations will loose money.
We're hearing more and more about our pending global El Niño. NOAA now says the odds are 70 percent that we'll have an El Niño event develop by this summer
"There is a good chance we will see a global temperature record this year or next if a substantial El Niño event takes hold."
That's bad news for climate skeptics. After all, by now we've all heard the claim that global warming has "stopped" or is "slowing down."
As we've explained before, this misleading assertion relies heavily on the fact that the year 1998 was a very, very warm year, due to a strong El Niño event. If you cherry-pick the beginning of your time series, and start with a very hot year, you can make it look as though global temperatures aren't rising so fast. But the reality is that, as the World Meteorological Organization notes, "each of the last three decades has been warmer than the previous one, culminating with 2001-2010 as the warmest decade on record."
But as soon as the globe sets another temperature record, the global warming "slowdown" talking point becomes a lot less compelling. At that point, climate skeptics will have a few options: Either they can finally accept the overwhelming body of evidence that global warming is real, or they can come up with a new cherry-picked counter argument. Want to guess which one they'll choose? Will 2014 Be the Hottest Year on Record? | Mother Jones
El Niño events are normal climatic events. Trust warmers to politicize it. Rainfall will be above normal as will temps in winter. But to assert the earth has recommenced cooking because of a normal climatic event is borderline hysteria.
As we've explained before, this misleading assertion relies heavily on the fact that the year 1998 was a very, very warm year, due to a strong El Niño event. If you cherry-pick the beginning of your time series, and start with a very hot year, you can make it look as though global temperatures aren't rising so fast. But the reality is that, as the World Meteorological Organization notes, "each of the last three decades has been warmer than the previous one, culminating with 2001-2010 as the warmest decade on record."
You are using climate events to support earth is cooking. That's like saying deniers are using winter to prove it stopped warming.
Americans really have collectively become an ignorant people. It's sad.
I don't live on Venus. And the sun accounts for warming.
You know, that big bright ball of fire in the sky?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
