NASA Ranks This August Warmest On Record

Go to NASA's page on climate change for a nice primer. Of course, you won't actually believe any of the evidence of sea level rise, global surface temperature rise, etc.

 

Would you agree that temperatures having been increasing since the Industrial Revolution? I've said this a million times, it's a matter of credibility. If you saw 100 doctors and 97 said you had cancer, but 3 did not, who would you go with? Would you also agree that the fossil fuel industry tries to influence the debate, and stands to gain billions through inaction?

 

I accept your defeat. Inb4 you post links to "wattsupwiththat" and other no-name bloggers in a feeble rebuttal attempt.

 

: come back when you mature!!

 

Says the guy who uses more emoticons in their post than my teenage cousin.

 

you don't even realize you fell into the same trap as the rest do you?

None of us................not a single one is debating climate change................just that man is causing it................to which your links do not prove...................nor do anyone else's

 

Until Hansen is no longer in charge of NASA they have ZERO credibility. If you don't remember who Hansen was he was the one that sabotaged the air conditioning at the first global warming conference and made incredibly silly predictions like sea levels rising by a meter. How an (*)(*)(*)(*)**** like that still has his job is beyond me.

NASA needs to be dissolved or maybe change it to Muslim Outreach Agency, since that is their stated goal now, and take away their rockets and give them Korans.

 

Yes, temperatures have been increasing but the period that is relevant to CO2 is from the 50's on. What then caused the warming from the 1900's and the cooling from the 1940's other than natural variability? Realize we were coming out of the Little Ice Age so warming would be natural. Now that there has been no statistical warming since the beginning of this century, which was not supposed to happen but now is being 'blamed' on natural variability then which is it? CO2 or Natural Variability? The climate is a wicked system and simple explanations just don't cut it.

Please don't bring up the bogus 97% again, it just shows how gullible you are.

The fossil fuel industry stands to gain no matter what we do because we are trying to act alone. Coal and oil use are projected to increase worldwide. On top of that, those industries are getting into the green tech movement because there is money to be made.

 

Are you really trying to argue that a majority of climate scientists reject that man is playing a huge part in climate change? Good luck with that. The warming pause is mostly bull(*)(*)(*)(*), the person who started that meme began with an abnormally hot year, 1998, which now not abnormal at all because temperatures have risen. Again, it's a matter of credibility, and any objective person will note that every mainstream organization endorses AGW, while mostly fringe elements (and people who arent climatologists) do not.

- - - Updated - - -

Just a coincidence that temperature rise largely correlates with CO2 output then?

 

That alleged 'bull(*)(*)(*)(*)' has scientists coming up with all sorts of explanations for it. It is not a meme but observational science. What you call 'fringe elements' are some very qualified scientists, some that have contributed to earlier IPCC reports.

BTW, the correlation between temperature and CO2 is that CO2 rises due to warming. The oceans are the biggest CO2 sink so when they warm, they out gas more CO2, that is very simple science. Does man contribute to CO2? Undoubtedly but the Climate interaction is both not proven nor fully understood. Now that observational science has fully falsified all CO2 centric climate models there are many reputations on the line. This is not something new but it was even discussed in the Climategate emails that if the pause went on any longer, their hypothesis would be in trouble. You think those guys are being paid by the fossil fuel industry?

 

That may be simpleton science, but reality is more complex.

While ocean temperature increasing will cause CO2 to out gas slightly (Henry's Law), increasing the concentration of the CO2 partial pressure in the atmosphere will cause the ocean to continue to absorb CO2, thus making the ocean more acidic even at higher temperature.

 

It is estimated that only 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is man made. What makes you think that tips any balance?

 

Yes. The problem is almost every other natural source of CO2 is also a sink of CO2. They take out about as much as they put in. Man-Made CO2 is the only type outside of a rare natural event that doesn't naturally have a sink. It adds up. And the models show that even that small of an increase can have an effect. But more importantly is that we show no sign of slowing down. Our CO2 emissions are getting exponentially higher.

 

So far the models have also shown to be much to sensitive to CO2 and why they completely missed most of the current lack of warming. That and other things they do not model of course.

 

The models were wrong but not because of over sensitivity to CO2. They failed to account for a decade that should have been a decade of cooling but because of CO2's effect was a decade of stable temperatures. This is not a permanent situation we're in by any means.

 

FAIL, they are still overly sensitive to CO2. If it is supposed to be a decade of cooling you would think they would have taken that into account wouldn't you? Nothing is permanent in climate, duh.

 

You can say this until the cows come in and the denialists will simply go into their blah blah blah --- last 15 years act. But once again, every decade since the 60s has had a higher average temperature than the previous one. That's quite a run and if you look at the graph of temperature measurements since the 1880s with drops much steeper and longer than anything you have seen recently you will still notice how the longer term temperature trend directly tracks the fairly uniform rise in CO2 and we haven't even discussed the heat sequestering ocean and experiencing the hottest August on record as we move into the 4th year of our latest decade.

The number of folks relentlessly dedicated to a war on global warming reality is one of those head scratchers. Apparently this reality brings up a Pandora's Box of fears or possibly it simply supplies a trolling opportunity, a kind of time occupier for bored attention seekers.

 

You're not seriously suggesting that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is coming from the oceans, are you? Because that would be hard to explain when the oceans are taking in more CO2 than they emit.
http://pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

Before the industrial revolution, it was natural that CO2 followed warming, because there were no significant human CO2 sources. But when humans produce 30 Gt of CO2 per year and atmospheric CO2 increases by only 15 Gt, it's not hard to see where it's coming from.
http://www.newscientist.com/article...ions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html#.VCS8lDZ0yCo

 

CO2 solubility in sea water is temperature dependent. It is ten times as likely that atmospheric CO2 is coming from natural sources, namely the warming ocean surface, as it is likely that it is coming from anthropogenic sources. The changes in CO2 track ocean surface temperature, not global carbon emissions.

Here is the same comparison using sea surface temperature (HADSST2).

 

This is true, but if we didn't produce any CO2, the oceans would emit more than they absorb. It has to do with temperature dependent equilibrium.

I forget what it is, 2% comes to mind referring to how much less CO2 the ocean will hold with an average 1 degree C surface temperature increase. If the 2% number is correct, then it is enough to almost double atmospheric CO2 when equalization is achieved. This equalization takes centuries however.

The warmer waters are not currently adding to atmospheric CO2, the anthropogenic addition is far greater than the natural change is for a given time. The equalization still is removing atmospheric CO2, not adding to it. However, it does slow down the net sinking of added CO2 in the atmosphere.

The fact is, if the oceans warmed and man was not adding CO2 to the air, the oceans would be a net source rather than a net sink.

 

Sorry, but that is likely more coincidental. The oceans are still a net sink of CO2. Now it is possible that what we see is CO2 levels following temperature, but only because the temperature is reducing how fast the ocean can be a net sink. If the ocean was a net source of CO2 along with man's output of CO2, we would probable be seeing a minimum of 460 ppm in the atmosphere now.

If the oceans were immediately in balance with mankind's emission, we would have only increased to about 281 ppm from 278. To see the full effect of ocean temperature change to a new equilibrium point, or changing gas balances, it takes around 800 to 1,000 years, because it takes that long for the waters to circulate.

 

I think it is a mistake to think that oceans only react to surface temperature when there are probably 10 times more volcanoes and earthquakes below the ocean then on land. Look where ENSO originates, usually along the Pacific Rim of Fire. Earth is an active heat engine with a thin moving crust.

 

Although this comes from a site titled "Rocket Scientist Journal" and is more like a blog, nobody will dispute this graph that understands the applicable sciences:



The first few paragraphs under this graph:

link: http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html

 

CO2 also has different ratios of [SUP]13[/SUP]C and [SUP]14[/SUP]C depending on it's source too, which makes it possible to determine where the extra CO2 is coming from.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/mixing.html