Study finds that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant

Another platitude....never any verifiable facts.

 

Changing the topic ? How quaint. There is no accredited universitie in the entire world that agrees with the premise of this thread. That makes your comments small, very small and frankly inconsequential. Neoclassical economics. I didn’t not know how this enters the picture but seeing how the Republican Party does not practice economic theory that is even taught in accredited schools probably means conservatives know little about economics. Keynesian economics is the gold standard of basic macro economics while Ryan’s so called dynamic scoring is hogwash. So, if you want to relate economics with climate change, the proof is there. Republicans are totally out of touch on both. 9 of the last ten recessions under their tutelage is proof. If repugs knew anything about economics, they wouldn’t have recessions follow them around like puppy dogs.

 

Not true. Models absolutely account for the 0.1% variance in irradiance due to the solar cycles.

You're making stuff up. Models account for all of this. I'm not saying they account for them perfectly, but they absolutely account for all of this.

There is no block of code in a general circulation model that makes the assumption that temperature will go up when CO2 concentration goes up. The temperature goes up as a consequence of the laws of physics and not because the programmer wanted it to go up.

The article you linked to disagrees.

False. Models use what are called the primitive equations. They derived entirely from F=ma and PV=nRT. The primitive equations are the continuity of mass, conservation of momentum, and the thermal energy equation. The model then solves these using finite differencing or the spectral method. CO2 and many other quantities are parameterized meaning their behaviors are incorporated into the model based physical laws. In the case of CO2 its EM spectrum behavior is what is programmed. In fact, the biosphere can actually get into a state in which CO2 can cause localized cooling depending on what the EM radiation is doing at the time. There is no "if CO2 goes up then make temperature go up too" equation. Models actually wouldn't work correctly if it were programmed that way.

Wrong. They accurately predicted the total heat accumulations of the entire biosphere. What they "failed" at was predicting the heat accumulation of the atmosphere which only accounts for 3% of the biosphere. By the way, they also "failed" at predicting the heat accumulation of ice because models underestimated ice melt...by a lot. The reason why you think they "failed" is because 1) you cherry pick only 3% of the biosphere 2) you cherry pick a narrow period of time and 3) and you define "fail" as anything deviating from complete perfection. Under these terms you will undoubtedly notice a lot of "failures" in the coming years and yet the atmosphere will still continue to warm.

 

Your chart proves what I earlier said and nothing more. Earth's temperature has been increasing since the last ice age ended and it will continue to do so until we start slipping into the next ice age. It's the natural earth cycle.

 

Are burning fossil fuels, among other things, especially since the industrial revolution a natural part of the Earth's cycle?

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

 

As I've said repeatedly man has increased C02 in the atmosphere and as I've said repeatededly there is no evidence this has had any overwhelming effect on our climate. Your chart interesting enough proves just the opposite of what you intended because as our C02 contribution went up exponentially over the last decade it barely if it all warmed which proves your AGW hypothesis is wrong and there is no direct correlation between C02 levels and Earth's temperature. Thanks for posting a graph proving that.

 

No you have been educated. You're welcome.

 

It is unfortunate that you cannot be.

 

Where are getting that it hasn't warmed over the last decade?

And where are you getting that there is no direct correlation between CO2 levels and temperature?

 

You’ve said it repeatedly because deniers are one trick ponies who follow some innate and irrelevant subculture that can’t or won’t understand real science. You guys are duped by citizens united and the fat cats who care more about profit and polluting the earth then human suffering. It really doesn’t matter whether you believe in climate change or not, the world’s economy is going greener while America lags behind. Trump is ahead of schedule with his trade war and the market has fallen for eight consecutive days. He wasn’t due for a recession until his third year when the huge tax cut deficits began taking money out of the hands of small businesses. Just to play it safe, Park your money under your mattress and wear a mask when you go outside.

 

It was hidden in a dark moist crevasse posterior to his forward facing persona....thus do we have the odor that encompasses his commentary.

He Pulled It Out Of His A$$

 

Multiple sources on this, take your pick but this is the first one to come up if you Google it.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/2013/recent-pause-in-warming

 

We already know the global mean surface temperature paused from the beginning of 1998 to the end of 2012. However, the last decade is defined as beginning of 2008 to the end of 2017. During that period the GMST warmed by 0.45C. In additional the entire heat content of the biosphere which includes ocean, land, air, and ice marched up almost completely unabated from 1998. So while there definitely was a pause in the air temperature from 1998 to 2012 there definitely wasn't a pause over the last decade nor has there been any significant pauses in total heat content of entire biosphere since at least Pinatubo which erupted in 1991. And even that only lasted a few years.

 

You asked where I got my info and I told you. Argue with those multiple sources and get them,many of which are on your AGW side to change their stance if you disagree.

 

There aren't multiple sources that say it barely if at all warmed over the last decade though. In fact, there aren't any sources that say this. Also, the source you linked to is talking about the atmosphere which accounts for only 3-4% of heat storage mechanisms in the biosphere and only over a 15 year period from 1998 to 2013.

My issue here is this. You are cherry picking a very small portion of the biosphere over a specifically chosen time period that happens to start with an El Nino and ends with a La Nina to claim that the warming has stopped. In other words, out of all the heat content changes that have occurred since 1960 (the approximate time at which anthroprogenic effects really began ramping up) you have chosen [(2013 - 199 / (2017 - 1960) * 0.04 = 0.01 = 1%] of it to make your point. What about the other 99%? Do we just pretend like it didn't happen?

 

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide/climate-change
Rather then just pick and choose one report, let’s just look at the summary of Met Office, YOUR REFERENCE. .
Even they have concluded that you guys are wrong.
We can do this with any reputable source. You’re ALWAYS wrong if you bother to research the conclusion of all their studies.
Go ahead, pick out another !
There are NO REPUTABLE SOURCES in the entire world that agree with you. When you deniers start dissing science, you’re dissing the same institution responsible for you being alive today if you’re over 35. Now you are on a fool’s errand.

 

Google it.There are countless sources saying it didn't warm anywhere near as predicted by the cult over a period where C02 in the atmosphere rose exponentially and in fact temperature rose very little if at all. Here another example for you to free over.


Climate change: The case of the missing heat
Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus’, scientists are piecing together an explanation.


https://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

 

The so called pause was real and the met office does not refute it they try to explain it

 

Something is clearly getting lost in translation here. No one disputes that the atmosphere didn't warm significantly from 1998-2012. However, it seems as though you are holding onto this claim that it hasn't warmed significantly over the last decade which is from 2008 to 2017 and you are using data from 1998 to 2012 to make the argument. That's the issue we need to resolve here.

And by the way, that nature article is saying what I'm saying. That is, the uptake of heat via the ocean continues, but the distribution of the heat changed such that part of the heat flux from ocean to air transformed into shallow-ocean to deep-ocean during this period. They even say they expect these decadal oscillations to be common place going forward. In other words, the biosphere will continue to retain heat at the expected rate, but the ocean/air heat fluxes will oscillate in such a way as to produce a pause-up-pause-up effect on the air temperature.

And here's something else I want to discuss. You are using the pause as a means of falsifying the hypothesis that CO2 can have an effect on the air temperature. But, in doing so you are assuming that CO2 is the only thing that can effect the temperature to make that conclusion. Then in other posts you and other skeptics chide climate scientists for not considering other mechanisms. The double irony here is that climate scientists are the ones who consider multiple process both anthroprogenic and natural. And you are the one who is assuming CO2 can be the only process which the air temperature can change and then use that assumption in conjunction with "the pause" to show that it is false. In other words, you are assuming something to make an argument that climate scientists already know isn't true.

Were our predictions of the air temperature perfect? No, definitely not. But, they were useful. They were far more useful than the predictions deniers/skeptics have made. So if you are incredulous about these predictions to the point of discrediting AGW then maybe you should look in the mirror and make a fair assessment of your own position using the same standard you are placing on climate scientists. I'm just saying...

 

Yes, we know. But, if you believe "the pause" is real then that means you accept that the dozens of datasets which computer a global mean surface temperature are themselves legitimate. This necessarily means you have to acknowledge these points as well: 1) the Earth has warmed significantly since 1960 and 2) the Earth has warmed significantly over the last decade.

So the question for you is this. Do you acknowledge the two points above or do you only acknowledge that "the pause" happened?

 

I guess you don’t get science. Sorry it’s over your head. The web site reference clearly concludes you are wrong. It’s the INSTITUTION summary reports from their websites that matter. Your reference is back in 2013. You choosing this to hang your hat on is too funny.
If you think that one snap shot in time clearly negates the final conclusions of this institution, you’re way over your head.

 

A long convoluted way of saying no it didn't warm as predicted but the warming hid in oceans so it didn't stop warming so there was no pause in warming except that scientist can't find this warming in oceans so then they say it warmed as predicted but we don't know where it is. In other words it didn't warm as you predicted and you can't find the missing heat but you insist it's somewhere damnit because your hypothesis is your God and God is never wrong. Oh and by the way man's C02 is the driving factor in climate except when it isn't and Earth doesn't warm as predicted, that was unpredictable natural causes that had the nerve to interfere with your religion. LOL

 

You guys labeled it a pause, my side says it's a test of your hypothesis and once again it failed yet another test.

 

I saw there is a massive shortage of CO2 in Europe. So much so that beer makers, drink manufacturers are having to ...gasp.... ration... or otherwise significantly reduce production of their tasty beverages.... the horror.