Study finds that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant

Isn't El Nino irregularly periodic?

 

Indeed it is. Your point?

 

That was my point.

 

I think you meant La Nina. That usually leads to a cooler atmosphere.

Anyway, El Nino is a situation that leads to the atmosphere warming quickly at the expense of the ocean cooling. La Nina is a situation that leads to the atmosphere cooling quickly at the expense of the ocean warming. It is a cycling heat flux process. When viewed separately there are changes in the heat content of each medium. However, when viewed together there is a near zero net change in total heat content. The ENSO cycles are natural variability that has no impact on the heat content of the entire biosphere. It's just moving heat around from one medium to the other. This is what I mean when I say skeptics/deniers are cherry-picking "the pause" and drawing the wrong conclusion. What we are seeing now is the entire biosphere is warming. Yes, natural process are moving heat around, but overall the net sum of all heat stored in the biosphere is rising.

 

And what is the point of your point? How is it applicable to the fact that it overwhelmed our C02 contribution?

 

The fact is a natural event overwhelmed and negated any effect on climate our C02 contribution has or doesn't have on climate and true believers called it a pause in warming which in a way is accurate because it's been warming since the last ice age ended. It will continue to warm until some other natural event sends us into yet another ice age which is more the norm for this planet. The cult is always talking about normal climate and in reality that's an ice age so enjoy this brief and pleasant warm period and quit whining.

 

That made sense; not.
Religion by definition, is a “cult.” Science by definition is not. You’re at a stage where you’re reinventing the English language.
This is where you righty cultists go completely off the track. “You” are the cult by rejecting fact based evidence in favor of accepting “idol like” worship based upon opinion which is fueled by your own bigotry. At the very least, look at a dictionary.

 

AGW is two things
1: Politics disguised as science
2: Religion disguised as science.

 

This is another fable invented by you cultists.
Science doesn’t even belong in the same sentence as politics or religion. Enlighten yourself. Try the dictionary first so you’re less inclined to make crapolla up.

 

Then you should probably try backing up that point for once, instead of simply asserting it over and over.

Empty handwaving. CO2 drives temperature, and temperature drives CO2. Saying it any other way is being deliberately misleading.

I gave you the actual hard science that said CO2 and warming ran pretty much simultaneously. That appears to have inflicted some severe cognitive dissonance on you. The hard data contradicted your favorite talking point. Since going against cult dogma is not an option for you, you escaped the pain in the usual way, by handwaving the inconvenient real world away with conspiracy theories about fraud.

Concerning your supervolcano fables, you handled the cognitive dissonance in a different way. When asked to back up your bogus talking point, you realized you couldn't, so you quietly let the issue of your fake claim vanish.

In your universe, the CO2 effect, which runs concurrently with the warming, is not the cause, while the ice albedo effect, which lags the warming by thousands of years, is the cause. That's an interesting view of cause and effect.

No. AMO effects are local, and far too small to explain global temperature change. The current state of the AMO is a result of global warming, not a cause.

And you still haven't explained the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. You just shouted "temperature drives CO2!", without explaining what initially drove the temperature. You can't just wave hands around and yell "natural cycles!". Natural cycles have to have a cause, and your theory never provides one.

You've circled back to your favorite logic failure, claiming that since CO2 wasn't the sole factor, CO2 had no significant effect at all.

Of course it does. The cooling effect of atmospheric aerosols from pollution overrode the warming effect of the CO2. This is basic stuff, and you fail at it.

But it doesn't really, your handwaving notwithstanding. And even if it did, it just means you've circled back to your debunked "temperature drives CO2 means CO2 can't drive temperature" logical fallacy.

Says the one who just hand-waved away the actual science about ice cores. Can you project a little harder? Unlikely.

So, you've declared models say CO2 and water vapor feedback is not limited. I'm sure you can point to such models, if you didn't just fake another claim out of frustration. If your claim is correct, the models should be predicting earth heats up to Venus levels. Where are those models?

 

No, you are totally misunderstanding something here. Natural variability causes the temperature to oscillate about a linear trend line that has a positive slope. If you remove the natural variability the temperature is still going up, but with a straighter and less random looking walk. But, it's still very much up. I think your confusion can best be described with the following animation. You only see the blue flat lines whereas everyone else sees the positive sloped red line. Notice how natural variability is causing the temperature to swing up and down and oscillating around the red line.

 

Right...so temperature and CO2 are in a feedback with each other such that a change in one can cause a change in another. This is why CO2 can both lead and lag the temperature response depending on the specific circumstances at the time. The reason why CO2 is leading the temperature change today is because the response of the CO2 from a change in temperature is dwarfed by the change humans are causing to the CO2. The temperature driven change in CO2 is several orders of magnitude less than the human driven change in CO2. That's why the natural feedback signal from temperature to CO2 is only barely (if at all) perceptible. The human signal is completely washing out the natural signal.

CO2 is not the only driver of temperature. Climate scientists are completely open about this. It is the net effect of all climate forcing processes that matters. CO2 produces a constant positive radiative forcing, but you still have to factor in the negative radiative forcings as well. It just so happens that anthroprogenic aerosols (which are relatively short lived) yield a negative radiative forcing. This is similar to how volcanic aerosols also cause temporary cooling.

Can you post a link to what you're talking about?

No body is saying that CO2 dictates the temperature. Meaning, that it is not the most important thing that defines the temperature; not by a long shot. However, it still participates in fine tuning the temperature and especially the vertical distribution of it. So while CO2 doesn't have the only say in the actual T it does have most of the say in the ΔT we observe today. Or in other words, while it doesn't dictate the T it is (currently) dictating the ΔT.

 

We have to keep reminding ourselves that in a denier’s POV, the drop in temperature that occurs when the sun goes down, is enough to disprove global warming. They’ll latch on to some inane and misrepresented piece of information from Fox and Friends as if it were the definitive piece they need to continue thinking that they’re right and anyone who relies on facts belongs to a cult.

 

Wrong. "Temperature drives CO2," is correct.

But insignificantly compared to how much an increase in temperature increases CO2.

I don't like "facts" that have been altered to suit a political agenda.

 

So, NASA likes "alternative facts" or falsehoods you mean?

Talk about psychological projection!

 

True: and the modest and inconsistent temperature changes resulting from recent large CO2 increases relative to the interglacial increases show CO2 can't have been a significant driver of the massive interglacial temperature changes, and therefore also can't be a significant temperature driver today.

It is the only significant driver in AGW climate models.

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...ate_Models/links/02e7e52ea34c533599000000.pdf

That is the only thing AGW screamers say.

AGW screamers claim it is.

Nope.

 

ResearchGate is not a peer reviewing journal, and you still didn't answer, iamnoman's, question, but just seem to be trying to obfuscate.

Can you summarize the thing you linked to? Are you saying AGW models are overlooking rain clouds?

:EDIT:

That and social network is under other scrutiny for uploads: https://www.nature.com/news/publish...-millions-of-papers-from-researchgate-1.22793

 

What science department?
Political science?
Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences?
Linguistics and Philosophy?

What do you want to say, - that the theories I posted in pdf format are not taught in Ivy League schools exactly in the way I posted?
What is synopsis in natural sciences?

http://aeroastro.mit.edu/
http://dmse.mit.edu/
http://www.eecs.mit.edu/

And?

Talking about religious fanaticism.

 

The question was clear. What institute of higher learning are you talking about ?

 

You’re a strange dude if you think any of the above is in the science department of any college or university.

 

Your post.
What institute of higher learning are you referring to ?
By that, we mean an accredited university or college.

 

1. The rules of the forum do not allow to request personal information.
2. Links were provided.
3. They are applicable to any Ivy league school, unless you can demonstrate that there is one of the schools which does not teach the theories I posted exactly in the way I posted.

 

The links were provided.
MIT and not only MIT but any Ivy league school.

 

Are you saying that those are not sciences?

Are you or you are not?

Do they participate in the synopsis or they don't?

Start answering questions.

https://science.mit.edu/research-and-academics/

What is synopsis in natural sciences?

 

These guys are unbelievable. Literally, lives and corporate success is dependent upon the information nasa provides.

Let’s make it simple. If you want to brag about using sources from an Ivy League school, just remember, there are no Ivy League schools that agree with the premise of this thread. They are all in on man made climate change like every other accredited college or university.