21 Aug 15
3 edits
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 Nature Publishing Group.) The research suggests that—contrary to some prior findings—CO2 led the prior round of global warming rather than vice versa, just as it continues to do today thanks to rising emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
"We find that global temperature lags a bit behind the CO2 [levels]," explains paleoclimatologist Jeremy Shakun, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration fellow at Harvard and Columbia universities, who led the research charting ancient CO2 concentrations and global temperatures. "CO2 was the big driver of global warming at the end of the Ice Age."
..."
23 Aug 15
1 edit
Not quite the same subject but;
http://phys.org/news/2015-08-world-july-noaa-scientists.html
"...The world broke new heat records in July, marking the hottest month in history and the warmest first seven months of the year since modern record-keeping began in 1880, US authorities said Thursday.
...
The month's average temperature across land and sea surfaces worldwide was 61.86 Fahrenheit (16.61 Celsius), marking the hottest July ever.
The previous record for July was set in 1998.
"This was also the all-time highest monthly temperature in the 1880-2015 record," said NOAA in its monthly climate report.
"The first seven months of the year (January-July) were also all-time record warm for the globe,"
When scientists looked at temperatures for the year-to-date, they found land and ocean surfaces were 1.53 F (0.85 C) above the 20th century average.
..."
23 Aug 15
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.
The reason for the current record and the previous 1998 record occurring in the particular years is most likely because both are strong El Nino years. To look at the overall trend one should take a decadal average or look at strong El Nino years in series or something like that rather than comparing the current year with non-El Nino years.
The record is still notable of course because is obviously beats all El Nino years on record.
23 Aug 15
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.
28 Aug 15
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.
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!
28 Aug 15
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."
..."
28 Aug 15
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!
28 Aug 15
9 edits
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.
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 well as the tiny bubbles of ancient air trapped inside ice cores taken from Antarctica, Greenland and elsewhere. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.) The research suggests that—contrary to some prior findings—CO2 led the prior round of global warming rather than vice versa, just as it continues to do today thanks to rising emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
"We find that global temperature lags a bit behind the CO2 [levels]," explains paleoclimatologist Jeremy Shakun, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration fellow at Harvard and Columbia universities, who led the research charting ancient CO2 concentrations and global temperatures. "CO2 was the big driver of global warming at the end of the Ice Age."
..."
note how the above:
"We find that global temperature lags a bit behind the CO2 "
from a qualified paleoclimatologist, logically contradicts your obviously false assertion of:
"The warming came first, then CO2 levels rose like they always do."
and you are not a qualified paleoclimatologist.
Not sure who you think you are convincing here but, you don't.
31 Aug 15
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.
04 Sep 15
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.
Try again.
05 Sep 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainHere is a piece about that cycle:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/in-hot-water/
Try again.
"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 forcing influences climate is not well understood. In the most prominent anthropogenic example, orbital forcing from the Milankovitch cycles has been in a cooling phase for millennia, but that cooling trend was reversed in the 20th and 21st centuries due to warming caused by increased anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.[22]"
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]"