21 Aug '15 10:52>
http://phys.org/news/2015-08-ice-age-greenhouse-gas-factor.html
More accurate data now.
More accurate data now.
Originally posted by humyKeep in mind that average surface temperature is not equivalent to average global temperature. The pacific ocean in particular goes through a long term cycle (El Nino/El Nina) that cycles the heat around dramatically changing surface temperatures but not necessarily changing the total heat stored in the ocean.
The previous record for July was set in 1998.
Originally posted by twhiteheadDoesn't an increasing average surface temperature mean permanent El Nino?
Keep in mind that average surface temperature is not equivalent to average global temperature. The pacific ocean in particular goes through a long term cycle (El Nino/El Nina) that cycles the heat around dramatically changing surface temperatures but not necessarily changing the total heat stored in the ocean.
The reason for the current record and the pr ...[text shortened]...
The record is still notable of course because is obviously beats all El Nino years on record.
Originally posted by sonhouseRidiculous. The warming came first, then CO2 levels rose like they always do. How many times do I have to correct your faulty cause and effect.
http://phys.org/news/2015-08-ice-age-greenhouse-gas-factor.html
More accurate data now.
Originally posted by humySee Henry's Law you cretin! Your cause and effect is backwards. So are your critical thinking skills. Look up "group think". Hanging around your idiot AGW alarmist buddies is making you look like an idiot too!
That seems to tie in with what I read here:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-thawed-the-last-ice-age/
"... Researchers examined sediment cores collected from deep beneath the sea and from lakes as well as the tiny bubbles of ancient air trapped inside ice cores taken from Antarctica, Greenland and elsewhere. (Scientific American is part of Nat ...[text shortened]... global temperatures. "CO2 was the big driver of global warming at the end of the Ice Age."
..."
Originally posted by Metal BrainSo, insulting a scientist is your way of thinking you will convert him to your apologists way of thinking?
Ridiculous. The warming came first, then CO2 levels rose like they always do. How many times do I have to correct your faulty cause and effect.
Take a beer or soda pop out of the refrigerator and open it. Leave it there until it gets warm. Notice how the CO2 left the liquid. That is what warming does. Idiot!
Originally posted by Metal BrainIf only you bother to read the links and posts here, you would make the trivial observation that the latest data analyses by scientists shows CO2 rose first, then temperature.
The warming came first, then CO2 levels rose like they always do.
Originally posted by humyRidiculous. See Milankovitch Cycles.
If only you bother to read the links and posts here, you would make the trivial observation that the latest data analyses by scientists shows CO2 rose first, then temperature.
Reminder:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-thawed-the-last-ice-age/
"... Researchers examined sediment cores collected from deep beneath the sea and from lakes as wel ...[text shortened]... qualified paleoclimatologist.
Not sure who you think you are convincing here but, you don't.
Originally posted by humyhttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article/in-hot-water/
relevance? Since there is absolutely no contradiction in there being more than one cause to a global warming, the Milankovitch Cycles clearly don't contradict anything in that link. Try again.
Originally posted by Metal BrainHere is a piece about that cycle:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/in-hot-water/
Try again.
Originally posted by sonhouseAs usual, as this link contradicts ( with "...due to warming caused by increased anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions...." ) his unscientific irrational beliefs ( like religious beliefs ), he has demonstrated he doesn't even bother to properly read his own links. I guess he must find science ( the science into man made global warming in this case ) that he, the none scientists, rubbishes, too boring to bother to read and learn about properly -No genuine curiosity. He only goes to science links to desperately find quotes that he believes helps him push his agenda, NOT because of any genuine curiosity in real science. And, because he doesn't ever properly learn about the science he rubbishes, he doesn't ever properly understand the science he rubbishes. His 'understanding' of the science must have become so massively twisted and warped that is must be a misnomer.
Here is a piece about that cycle:
"Since orbital variations are predictable,[21] if one has a model that relates orbital variations to climate, it is possible to run such a model forward to "predict" future climate. Two caveats are necessary: that anthropogenic effects may modify or even overwhelm orbital effects; and that the mechanism by which orbital ...[text shortened]... d 21st centuries due to warming caused by increased anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.[22]"