Arctic hits record low

Ignorant denier cult BS.

Natural carbon dioxide emissions are completely balanced, year by year, with natural processes of carbon absorption and sequestration, something that kept atmospheric CO2 levels at about 280ppm for many thousands of years. Until mankind began adding massive quanties of fossil carbon that had been safely sequestered underground for millions of years. That release of fossil carbon upset the previous homostatic natural balance and caused the current 46% increase in CO2 levels from 280ppm in pre-industrial times to the recent high of 410ppm.

 

The scientist who made that chart,based it on ICE CORES from Greenland and published in a science journal. I hope you can understand that Ice core data has been used for a few decades now, as part of geologic research on the climate of the past. His chart is valid,but limited in scope to just the Northern regions.

Sediment cores have been used since the 1950's,with data from them published in science journals,since the 1950's.The data from them has helped support the Milankovitch Hypothesis,along with learning about how significant temperature changes the cellular population to a different one.

It is a matured science method that provides a lot of useful information. That is why it is popular and credible.

 

Now you are losing your temper here,with your name calling, how poor of you.

It seems that some people have a strange inability to read the words in front of them,since I made a statement, that Man adds around 3% of the yearly total EMISSIONS,with Nature the rest. It was challenged,which I replied that his link actually supported my statement with this quote,

"Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year,/..."

Not once did I dispute the change from 280 ppm to 400 ppm, yet you called me names over something I didn't say.

 

I am totally aware about everything you said and concur to it. I balded the parts which denies scientists any credibility because it represent nothing but religious beliefs which cannot be verified. And livefree here is not for a debate, don't pay attention.

 

You realize that it covers only ONE month of each year?

There are only 37+ years of data against 15,000 years of the inter glacial period. Your chart doesn't really tell us much about the region as a whole,as 14,963 of the years are missing. Plus there were times of many years of little to no SUMMER ice in the region, in the early part of the inter glacial time,based on credible proxy data.

The estimated CO2 levels at that time was around the 260 ppm level.

 

I am confused by your statement on the Bolded words,can you elaborate?

 

Here is a simple primer on it,with some numbers in it:

CO2 is Logarithmic Explained

"What is often quoted is that CO2 doubling causes an increase in radiance to earth’s surface of 3.7 watts/meter squared, which in turn raises temperatures about 1 degree Celsius. Why the reference to “doubling”? Because we’re talking about light and filtering materials. Consider that you have several pairs of sun glasses, each of which blocks 50% of the light. If you put two pairs in a row, do they block 100%? Of course not. The first pair blocks 50% and the second pair blocks 50% of what is left, which is 25% of the original light. The third pair would only block 12.5% of the original light. CO2 suffers from the same law of diminishing returns. What keeps getting left out of the climate discussion is what happens after the first doubling. The pre-industrial levels (1900 AD or so) of CO2 are commonly quoted at 278 PPM (parts per million) and the current levels are at about 385 ppm. If we look at this graph, it becomes pretty clear that we would have to generate a LOT of CO2 to get much more effect than we are already:"

LINK

 

There is nothing in your statement or in the physical world which makes the chart credible. Popular and consented to does not mean credible. Science shouldn't be politics, the rules must be different.
See my sig for one of them.

 

misspost

 

As an example, it has never been demonstrated, thus it is a religious belief

 

I suspect you're the only one who knows what you're talking about.

 

You need to specify WHY you dislike the Links presentation. You make vague general statements,while the Link shows some details. Even though the details are not cast in stone, as they are approximate numbers.

 

Did you say that MWP and LIA didn't exist?

 

You see you understand. They exist only in the imagination of scientists.

 

Sorry I didn't mean to include LINK in the quote. Read it without LINK.

One more time: the claimed effect "CO2 ... causes an increase in radiance to earth’s surface"
has never been demonstrated, no machine has ever even atepmted to be built using this effect. Thus it is just a religious belief.
(BTW, the opposite to this claim was demonstrated - that the 2nd law cannot be violated.)

 

No, they exist in the archaeological record.

 

Let's go sentence by sentence.
I claim: There is nothing in your statement or in the physical world which makes the chart credible.
What is unclear in this sentence?

 

There can be no such record. It can exist only in imagination of scientists.
BTW do you know what is warming and what units it is measured in?

 

How do you think you can stop it from existing?

That does not describe physical artifacts and evidence, sorry.

Certainly: it's increased temperature, and is measured in degrees.

 

It is measured in calories or watts or joules, in the states it is often Btus.
Should I reply to the rest?

 

Inquisitor writes,

"CO2 ... causes an increase in radiance to earth’s surface",has never been demonstrated, no machine has ever even atepmted to be built using this effect."

CO2 heating the planets surface was never part of the AGW conjecture,not only that, it is a lower energy state than Visible light, which make the surface warmer,Visible light along with a little UV warms the top 300 feet or so of the oceans and lakes.The only arena that CO2 could warm up, is in the Atmosphere,but that becomes irrelevant for a reason most people never address.

CO2 changes doesn't drive the climate at all.

 

No, they do exist along with HUNDREDS of science papers published on it,with History,Biology,Botany fields to add in. They ALL agree there was a real MWP and LIA, in the last 1,000 years.

 

That absurd gobbdegook is a good example of the anti-science dementia of you bamboozled and very ignorant denier cultists.

In the real world, as the world scientific community unanimously affirms, CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas, and the over 46% increase in atmospherict CO2 levels is indeed quite definitely what is driving the rapid increase in global temperatures.

You deniers are what is "irrelevant"!

Global Warming - Causes
NASA

 

Credible to whom? If you mean to anyone other than yourself, you're making a call that you're unqualified to make as you're speaking for others. If you mean credible to you, we're back to your statements being meaningful to you, and to nobody else.

 

You once again make clear that you have nothing civil and constructive to say,then you post a link that is so embarrassing to see, since it is composed of propaganda,built on the IPCC assessment, which are built on a bunch of unverified climate models. Do you realize that the AGW conjecture are built on models,most that runs to year 2100?

Notice that you have no curiosity on this statement at all:

"The only arena that CO2 could warm up, is in the Atmosphere,but that becomes irrelevant for a reason most people never address.

CO2 changes doesn't drive the climate at all."

Just this one thing destroys the AGW conjecture,which most scientists long knew. It is the governments along with many environmentalists who are driving the absurd climate change hysteria. The few scientists who push this hysteria are beholden to governments, as they are on its payroll. You will be hard pressed to find a truly independent scientist believe that the sky is falling over a trace gas,with a tiny IR spectral absorption effect, with a trace increase in the mole fraction in the atmosphere.

You have no idea how you are being bamboozled,which is sad since it is the Governments, who are driving this assault on science research. They drive on the pesudoscience, because those 100+ Climate models to year 2100 are junk, since they don't meet the basic requirement of the Scientific Method, since they are NOT falsifiable, therefore NOT reproducible, therefore WORTHLESS!!!

Not only that, the rare short term predictions in the IPCC reports have failed utterly,the Per Decade warming trend is less than half of the projected rate from 1990 on wards. The failure of the Tropical Tropospheric " hot sport" is another key failure of the AGW conjecture.