Twenty years of two and a half degrees of warming

[lordjeff]

Since you never support your claims, I will just show that you are wrong. By the way I never claimed or even implied that growth was exponential. It is clearly not logarithmic:

This particular graph was fudged-the infamous hockey stick.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This particular graph was fudged-the infamous hockey stick.

LOL!! No, it really isn't. And the hockey stick was not "fudged" that is a claim that you cannot support. It turns out that every accurate graph of temperature is very similar to the "hockey stick". Do you know why?

 

[greatcloudlives]

Global warming is true. The satellite graphs for temperatures produced by Roy Spencer shows that we are experiencing some warmer than normal warming of nearly three degrees above the norm which is zero balance. The current situation of nearly six degrees above normal is very interesting to the climate change theory. Weather the satellite graphs in the next few years are going to continue to be up or stay the same or level out at the same place is a pause at a higher level than it was for fifteen years of nearly three degrees or not depends on many factors that are known to be associated with warming. The MWP topped out at about the level it's at now. The satellite graphs for the modern warming up of global temperature is accurate and consistent with the geological record of all the other warmings we have on record. So what are we going to have. Are temperatures going to keep going up or are they just going to level off at the level they are now ? It's essential at this point to see if we have run away warming or if the warming will level off at a lower rate like the previous years from 2000 to 2015. Remember In 2008 and 2012 all of the warming was gone and we had normal and even cooling temperatures for those years. So it's essential to see what the satellite graphs for 2021 and beyond will show.

Ninety percent of the CO2 produced in the atmosphere is from alge and fungi decomposing carbon based life forms and releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. There is nothing we can do about it at our present level of thechnology. The five warmings including this modern warming are all measured at about the level we have now , so what will be the next number that the satellite temperature will be ?

Global warming is Optimal for plants and animals at the level of warming we have now. As long as we don't have any higher temperatures in the coming years, we can deal with that. I am going to be looking forward to hearing about the satellite measurements for the mo ths to come May and June are very interesting and key to where the level of warming up is going to be at for the future.

I am certain that the CO2 produced by nature and mankind needs to be studied concerning the mathmatics of the CO2 warming on the atmosphere.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Global warming is true. The satellite graphs for temperatures produced by Roy Spencer shows that we are experiencing some warmer than normal warming of nearly three degrees above the norm which is zero balance. The current situation of nearly six degrees above normal is very interesting to the climate change theory. Weather the satellite graphs in the next few years are going to continue to be up or stay the same or level out at the same place is a pause at a higher level than it was for fifteen years of nearly three degrees or not depends on many factors that are known to be associated with warming. The MWP topped out at about the level it's at now. The satellite graphs for the modern warming up of global temperature is accurate and consistent with the geological record of all the other warmings we have on record. So what are we going to have. Are temperatures going to keep going up or are they just going to level off at the level they are now ? It's essential at this point to see if we have run away warming or if the warming will level off at a lower rate like the previous years from 2000 to 2015. Remember In 2008 and 2012 all of the warming was gone and we had normal and even cooling temperatures for those years. So it's essential to see what the satellite graphs for 2021 and beyond will show.

Ninety percent of the CO2 produced in the atmosphere is from alge and fungi decomposing carbon based life forms and releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. There is nothing we can do about it at our present level of thechnology. The five warmings including this modern warming are all measured at about the level we have now , so what will be the next number that the satellite temperature will be ?

Global warming is Optimal for plants and animals at the level of warming we have now. As long as we don't have any higher temperatures in the coming years, we can deal with that. I am going to be looking forward to hearing about the satellite measurements for the mo ths to come May and June are very interesting and key to where the level of warming up is going to be at for the future.

I am certain that the CO2 produced by nature and mankind needs to be studied concerning the mathmatics of the CO2 warming on the atmosphere.

Once again it is demonstrable that in our present atmosphere much of the CO2 comes from fossil fuels. I sincerely doubt if you can support your "Ninety percent" claim. In fact I am going to say Citation Needed. If you admit that you cannot support your claim then I will gladly show you how we know that man has been the source of the increased CO2 that is causing global warming.

And one can find ten year periods all over the place where "there was no warming". Picking short time periods like that is cherry picking. One needs to look at the long term trend and it is going to continue to warm for quite some time.

Lastly I am going to say Citation Needed in your claim that we are at an optimal temperature right now. If you cannot support your claims when challenged there is no need to refute them. They will be refuted by your lack of action. For example I can claim that I can fly by flapping my arms real fast. If someone challenges me and I cannot support my claim I in effect have refuted myself. So if you do not care to refute yourself please support your claims with valid sources.

 

[lordjeff]

LOL!! No, it really isn't. And the hockey stick was not "fudged" that is a claim that you cannot support. It turns out that every accurate graph of temperature is very similar to the "hockey stick". Do you know why?

Hockey stick has been researched & imperfect normalization was applied to the curve, a decade left out, the decline missing. Many articles even a court case. Tony Heller has done a lot of work on this. Again as I have reiterated there are too many inputs into the climate picture included solar climatology, the earth's magnetic cycle & reversals coupled with shifting tectonics. Increasing ocean water temp has been attributed some concepts that rest in marine geology, namely hydrothermal vents & the entire chain of underwater volcanism. Such warmer ocean water increases the rate of evaporation as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hockey stick has been researched & imperfect normalization was applied to the curve, a decade left out, the decline missing. Many articles even a court case. Tony Heller has done a lot of work on this. Again as I have reiterated there are too many inputs into the climate picture included solar climatology, the earth's magnetic cycle & reversals coupled with shifting tectonics. Increasing ocean water temp has been attributed some concepts that rest in marine geology, namely hydrothermal vents & the entire chain of underwater volcanism. Such warmer ocean water increases the rate of evaporation as well.

No, that was only the claim of ignorant deniers. Please find a reliable source that can support your claim.

 

[lordjeff]

Actually the deniers are not ignorant. They are scientists to. What scientists do is continue to explore, research, & measure. The hockey stick was frauded. Mann did not focus his research as much on the 1930s/40s which were considered hot decades. You are the one who needs to do more reading given that earth science is a huge subject but the stuff of climate interconnects all 4 of the sciences: astronomy, geology, meteorology, & oceanography. The Ice Ages have been correlated with certain carbon cycles & future fuels because the ice ages have been linked with magnetic reversals in addition to Milankovich cycles (Robert W. Felix Not by Fire but by Ice).

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually the deniers are not ignorant. They are scientists to. What scientists do is continue to explore, research, & measure. The hockey stick was frauded. Mann did not focus his research as much on the 1930s/40s which were considered hot decades. You are the one who needs to do more reading given that earth science is a huge subject but the stuff of climate interconnects all 4 of the sciences: astronomy, geology, meteorology, & oceanography. The Ice Ages have been correlated with certain carbon cycles & future fuels because the ice ages have been linked with magnetic reversals in addition to Milankovich cycles (Robert W. Felix Not by Fire but by Ice).

If they are scientists where are there peer reviewed papers? If one is not actively doing science one can hardly claim to be a scientist. The deniers are pretty much an anti-science bunch.

 

[greatcloudlives]

www.bbc.co.uk decomposition of carbon based life produces carbon dioxide. This process is ongoing and prolific producing most of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

[Subduction Zone]

www.bbc.co.uk decomposition of carbon based life produces carbon dioxide. This process is ongoing and prolific producing most of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

Your link only goes to a general BBC page. Can you please try to repost it.

 

[greatcloudlives]

This is basic biology, carbon based life forms die and decompose sending carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere.

 

[HitchSlap]

This is basic biology, carbon based life forms die and decompose sending carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere.

Yep, and add smog from fossil fuels to the equation, and it's a problem.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is basic biology, carbon based life forms die and decompose sending carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere.

Yes, but we have ways of tracing carbon dioxide. There is a reason that you cannot find sources that support your claims.

 

[greatcloudlives]

news.mit.edu the quote for the figure of ninety percent of the CO2 produced by decay of plants and animals is found here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

news.mit.edu the quote for the figure of ninety percent of the CO2 produced by decay of plants and animals is found here.

That is still not an article. If you give me the title of the article I may be able to post it for you.

 

[greatcloudlives]

news.mit.edu.plant decay

 

[greatcloudlives]

news.mit.edu.plant decay I think this is it.

 

[greatcloudlives]

The mathmatics of leaf decay MIT is the name of the article.

 

[greatcloudlives]

The article about leaf decay can be found at The mathmatics of leaf decay MIT news on the web. The second paragraph of the article.

 

[greatcloudlives]

Warmer oceans and decaying plants and animals are known to be responsible for CO2 in the atmosphere and much more than human sources. In fact they are responsible for ninety percent of the CO2 produced every year.