Even if emissions stop, carbon dioxide could warm Earth for centuries

Nov 24, 2013
Princeton University-led research suggests that even if carbon dioxide emissions came to a sudden halt, the carbon dioxide already in Earth's atmosphere could continue to warm our planet for hundreds of years. The researchers found while carbon dioxide steadily dissipates, the absorption of heat the oceans decreases, especially in the polar oceans such as off of Antarctica (above). This effect has not been accounted for in existing research. Credit: Eric Galbraith, McGill University

Even if carbon dioxide emissions came to a sudden halt, the carbon dioxide already in Earth's atmosphere could continue to warm our planet for hundreds of years, according to Princeton University-led research published in the journal Nature Climate Change. The study suggests that it might take a lot less carbon than previously thought to reach the global temperature scientists deem unsafe.

The researchers simulated an Earth on which, after 1,800 billion tons of carbon entered the atmosphere, all carbon dioxide suddenly stopped. Scientists commonly use the scenario of emissions screeching to a stop to gauge the heat-trapping staying power of carbon dioxide. Within a millennium of this simulated shutoff, the carbon itself faded steadily with 40 percent absorbed by Earth's oceans and landmasses within 20 years and 80 percent soaked up at the end of the 1,000 years.

By itself, such a decrease of should lead to cooling. But the heat trapped by the carbon dioxide took a divergent track.

After a century of cooling, the planet warmed by 0.37 degrees Celsius (0.66 Fahrenheit) during the next 400 years as the ocean absorbed less and less heat. While the resulting temperature spike seems slight, a little heat goes a long way here. Earth has warmed by only 0.85 degrees Celsius (1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) since pre-industrial times.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that global temperatures a mere 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than pre-industrial levels would dangerously interfere with the climate system. To avoid that point would mean humans have to keep cumulative below 1,000 billion tons of carbon, about half of which has already been put into the atmosphere since the dawn of industry.

The lingering warming effect the researchers found, however, suggests that the 2-degree point may be reached with much less carbon, said first author Thomas Frölicher, who conducted the work as a postdoctoral researcher in Princeton's Program in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences under co-author Jorge Sarmiento, the George J. Magee Professor of Geoscience and Geological Engineering.

"If our results are correct, the total required to stay below 2 degrees of warming would have to be three-quarters of previous estimates, only 750 billion tons instead of 1,000 billion tons of carbon," said Frölicher, now a researcher at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich. "Thus, limiting the warming to 2 degrees would require keeping future cumulative carbon emissions below 250 billion tons, only half of the already emitted amount of 500 billion tons."

The researchers' work contradicts a scientific consensus that the global temperature would remain constant or decline if emissions were suddenly cut to zero. But previous research did not account for a gradual reduction in the oceans' ability to absorb heat from the atmosphere, particularly the polar oceans, Frölicher said. Although carbon dioxide steadily dissipates, Frölicher and his co-authors were able to see that the oceans that remove heat from the atmosphere gradually take up less. Eventually, the residual heat offsets the cooling that occurred due to dwindling amounts of .

Frölicher and his co-authors showed that the change in ocean heat uptake in the polar regions has a larger effect on global mean temperature than a change in low-latitude oceans, a mechanism known as "ocean-heat uptake efficacy." This mechanism was first explored in a 2010 paper by Frölicher's co-author, Michael Winton, a researcher at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) on Princeton's Forrestal Campus.

"The regional uptake of heat plays a central role. Previous models have not really represented that very well," Frölicher said.

"Scientists have thought that the temperature stays constant or declines once emissions stop, but now we show that the possibility of a temperature increase can not be excluded," Frölicher said. "This is illustrative of how difficult it may be to reverse climate change—we stop the emissions, but still get an increase in the global mean temperature."

Explore further: UN: CO2 pollution levels at annual record high

More information: The paper, "Continued global warming after CO2 emissions stoppage," was published Nov. 24 by Nature Climate Change.

Related Stories

Ozone pact helped cool the planet, study reports

Nov 10, 2013

A slowdown in global warming that climate sceptics cite in favour of their cause was partly induced by one of the world's most successful environment treaties, a study said on Sunday.

Recommended for you

Tropical Storm Genevieve forms in Eastern Pacific

Jul 25, 2014

The seventh tropical depression of the Eastern Pacific Ocean formed and quickly ramped up to a tropical storm named "Genevieve." NOAA's GOES-West satellite captured an infrared image of the newborn storm ...

NASA maps Typhoon Matmo's Taiwan deluge

Jul 25, 2014

When Typhoon Matmo crossed over the island nation of Taiwan it left tremendous amounts of rainfall in its wake. NASA used data from the TRMM satellite to calculate just how much rain fell over the nation.

User comments : 73

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

VendicarE
3.1 / 5 (17) Nov 24, 2013
This study just confirms what has been known for a long time.
dogbert
2 / 5 (29) Nov 24, 2013
Chicken Little has confirmed that not only is the sky falling, fallen sky is itself a cause of more sky falling.

There appears to be no point at which climatologists will say "I won't say that, it is stupid."

The rest of us must continue to point out the political agenda driving these scare tactics.
goracle
2.5 / 5 (24) Nov 24, 2013
Chicken Little has confirmed that not only is the sky falling, fallen sky is itself a cause of more sky falling.

There appears to be no point at which climatologists will say "I won't say that, it is stupid."

The rest of us must continue to point out the political agenda driving these scare tactics.

Oh the irony of someone who uses the phrase "Chicken Little" in a completely science-free comment projecting their own political agenda on others. Typical and pathetic.
VendicarE
2.6 / 5 (14) Nov 24, 2013
"fallen sky is itself a cause of more sky falling." - DogBerTard

Poor DogBerTard. He didn't even read the article, but feels he magically knows enough to comment on it's content.

Retards are often like that... Spectacularly ignorant about the magnitude of their own ignorance.

NikFromNYC
1.8 / 5 (25) Nov 24, 2013
Gorebots are now like old Japanese soldiers dug in still on remote Internet terminal islands, believing news reports of the war's end to be mere enemy psyops. I mean, when I can debunk a dead Earth climate model like this using alarmist Jim Hansen's own last (damage control alert!) publication at NASA before retiring as a millionaire, well....

"We suggest that the surge of fossil fuel use, mainly coal, since 2000 is a basic cause of the large increase of carbon uptake by the combined terrestrial and ocean carbon sinks. One mechanism by which fossil fuel emissions increase carbon uptake is by fertilizing the biosphere via provision of nutrients essential for tissue building, especially nitrogen, which plays a critical role in controlling net primary productivity and is limited in many ecosystems and field studies confirm a major role of nitrogen deposition, working in concert with CO2 fertilization, in causing a large increase in net primary productivity of temperate and boreal forests."

Hansen is explaining why emissions are *not* leading to the expected rise in atmospheric CO₂.
full_disclosure
1.8 / 5 (22) Nov 24, 2013
"fallen sky is itself a cause of more sky falling." - DogBerTard

Poor DogBerTard. He didn't even read the article, but feels he magically knows enough to comment on it's content.

Retards are often like that... Spectacularly ignorant about the magnitude of their own ignorance.


Case in point…..you have skillfully identified yourself Herr Vendicar….
NikFromNYC
1.7 / 5 (24) Nov 24, 2013
Reading the paper is easier with an actual link:
http://www.nature...060.html

Supplement: http://www.nature...0-s1.pdf
NikFromNYC
1.8 / 5 (25) Nov 24, 2013
"Earth has warmed by only 0.85 degrees Celsius (1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) since pre-industrial times."

Thus alarm is called off! Yo, young mo fo Jimmy Hansen was crying about a *multiple* degree rise already by now based on *less* of a predicted emissions burst (oh, China!), but the actual rise is *below* his best case radical decarbonization scenario, so we got that for free due to the lack of his *assumed* overall positive feedbacks, did we not?

But these scammy rent seekers still dare cry alarm, steal our money and terrify students?

Early Hansen (1986): "Average global temperatures would rise by one-half a degree to one degree Fahrenheit from 1990 to 2000 if current trends are unchanged, according to Hansen's findings. Hansen said the global temperature would rise by another 2 to 4 degrees in the following decade."
[Reference: http://news.googl...mp;hl=en ]
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (25) Nov 24, 2013
This work is funded by Princeton's literally titled "Carbon Mitigation Initiative" with a dozen years of annual reports and a professional logo:
http://s6.postimg...mage.jpg

Even their own web site makes my fertilization effect point in a banner ("Without Plants Earth Would Cook"):
http://oi39.tinyp...9829.jpg

So where are Jim Hansen's plants in their ocean/landmass calculations? We could check, given climate model code, but that usually takes up to a decade of Freedom of Information Act prying, assuming it's federally funded in the first place but the British Petroleum logo also on their web site makes you wonder about seemingly ironic energy interests:
http://cmi.princeton.edu/

Is BP in the low emissions fracking business? Yup!!!:
http://ecowatch.c...e-event/

If you name your whole institute to embody alarm, what will your computers say for you?
dedereu
2.3 / 5 (16) Nov 24, 2013
It is not fantasies, no calculations necessary : look at the measured past climat in ice and sediments, over the past 5 or 3 millions years, ( wikipedia ), and you observe that the temperature and sea level have been more and more oscillating, with the same variation of solar heating,. This proves that the earth climat became more and more unstable with respect to the same variations of solar light (Milankovich). Thus the small solar heat to due to human CO2 and CH4, a variation of the same order,, with a small effect 5 millions years ago, will have a dramatic effect, stronger than the last warming, 125000 years ago, with 3°C more and sea level 5m higher than to day !!
This is dramatic, because when ice melt, it is irreversible, impossible to stop the rising seas, over several 1000years, like between 16000 and 6000 years ago, rising of 120m, impossible to stop by any means, even supressing all human CO2 !!
Our children will live with the seas rising steadily,
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (10) Nov 24, 2013
It will only warm the atmosphere until the end of the current interglacial which is due any day now. Then it will be a candle in the wind.
VendicarE
3.3 / 5 (12) Nov 24, 2013
"Gorebots are now like old Japanese soldiers" - NikkieTard

NikkieTard has a history of posing graphs that clearly show an upward slope and claiming that he sees a downward slope.

Normally I would call such a person, a Liar. But in NikkieTard's case, his multiple arrests, some for armed assault, and bizarre public behaviour, make it perfectly clear that he is mentally disturbed.

He makes a wonderful poster child for the Denialists.
Shootist
1.8 / 5 (21) Nov 24, 2013
"The polar bears are drowning." - algore, democrat, inventor of the Internet

"The polar bears will be fine." - Freeman Dyson

Who you believing?
goracle
2.1 / 5 (18) Nov 25, 2013
"The polar bears are drowning." - algore, democrat, inventor of the Internet

"The polar bears will be fine." - Freeman Dyson

Who you believing?

Copy and paste seems to be the limit of your creativity.

https://www.googl...be+fine'
kivahut
1.4 / 5 (15) Nov 25, 2013
I rather like the warmer winters
NikFromNYC
1.9 / 5 (18) Nov 25, 2013
Indeed Vendicar(E), we are each contemporary poster kids of a culture war. I'm glad you have cleared that up for everyone. I, a Ph.D. in carbon chemistry (Columbia/Harvard) and you, one of the most notorious old school Interner trolls of all time, lacking any background in hard science, evidently, just some computer programming struggles back in the days of Usenet where you also oddly infested alt.machines.cnc. As I tap this on an iPhone I can take a quick shot of the servo motor CNC router with an 80K RPM super magnet spindle and air vortex cooling I keep in my fabrication studio down the street from Columbia (where my old lab mate was recent chairman of the chemistry department), two blocks from Hansen's Hollow above Tom's Diner:
http://s6.postimg...mage.jpg

And today you inspired me by plotting HadCRUT4, Vendicar(E) to coin a new nickname for Phil Jones:

IN 2012 PHIL "HIDE THE DECLINE" JONES BECAME PHIL "HIDE THE INCLINE" JONES OF A SAUDI UNIVERSITY, up-adjusting HadCRUT3 into HadCRUT4:
http://www.woodfo...98/trend

Saudi Prince Jones:
http://mpc.kau.ed...nes.aspx

CLIMATEGATE 101: "For your eyes only…Don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone….Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that." – Phil Jones to Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann
VendicarE
3.1 / 5 (9) Nov 25, 2013
"The polar bears will be fine." - ShoTard quoting Freeman Dyson

You are quoting Alzheimer disease Tardieboy. Dyson is 91 years old, and has forgotten that his own research team - the Jason Project - came to the came conclusions as the IPCC, back in the 70's.

VendicarE
2.9 / 5 (8) Nov 25, 2013
"up-adjusting HadCRUT3 into HadCRUT4:" - NikkieTard

HadCRUT 4 has greater coverage of the polar regions and therefore naturally shows more warming since the poles are warming faster than the rest of the planet.

HadCRUT 3 is less "global" than HadCRUT4.

Do those facts upset you?

Awwww.... You poor Boy.

Here is a picture to make you feel better....

http://www.woodfo...90/trend
VendicarE
3.4 / 5 (8) Nov 25, 2013
"Saudi Prince Jones:" - NikkieTard

I'm not sure why you think that a picture of Phil Jones with a Saudi Prince is in any way negative.

Are you a Racist as well as having a history of armed assault, and being arrested for Child Molestation?
antialias_physorg
3.3 / 5 (10) Nov 25, 2013
I rather like the warmer winters

Will you like the bigger storms, the higher food prices (due to more frequent droughts), the mass immigration movements from south to north and the wars for water, though?
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (19) Nov 25, 2013
antialias, are you even serious, or are you just parroting Gorebot AstroTurf brochures?

"Will you like the bigger storms, the higher food prices (due to more frequent droughts), the mass immigration movements from south to north and the wars for water, though?"

(1) As fake "former skeptic" Dr. Richard Muller continually points out, the theory says poles will warm more than the equator thus *decreasing* the strength of storms.

(2) Carbon dioxide massively increases food crop yields as warming expands the growing season whereas both artificial energy rationing and burning corn as biofuels are what raise food prices!

(3) Then you don a sandwich board about climate refuges exactly as poster child Tuvala sea level remains steady.

(4) Water wars? But *your* side effectively banned nuclear desalination plants, right? Watts up with that?!

Are you even subtly aware of your state of hypocrisy?

...that your hawk and batt chopping industrialized hills are just Gaian religious crucifixes?
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (18) Nov 25, 2013
V(E): "HadCRUT 3 is less "global" than HadCRUT4."

Why does HadCRUT4 *diverge* then, Vendicar(E)?
http://www.woodfo.../mean:12

And the South Pole is *cooling* slightly long term, destroying the theory of polar amplification altogether. You are a political fanatic, merely.

Satellites show no warming for almost two decades. Scattered ground thermometers are obsolete in the Space Age. Even if you do rely on HadCRUT4, you are still below Hansen's *best* case scenario from 1988, as emissions have been greater than even his worst case scenario.

You show utterly no concern for environmental issues anyway, only pigheaded trolling which defeats any and all of your technical arguments. A few Gorebots here even think I made you up! My word, you're the world's biggest social idiot of all time. You're the guy who destroyed the whole Al Gore Astroturf campaign here on one of the highest traffic science sites.

Thanks!!!
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (18) Nov 25, 2013
V(E): "I'm not sure why you think that a picture of Phil Jones with a Saudi Prince is in any way negative."

Oh that's the end game of hypocrisy here, happening as I type, after oil money conspiracy theory was pushed on skeptics. Just wow. Here is the DeSmogBlog smearing Harvard's Willie Soon:

"U.S. oil and coal companies, including ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute, Koch Industries, and the world's largest coal-burning utility, Southern Company, have contributed more than $1 million over the past decade to his research. According to Greenpeace, every grant Dr. Soon has received since 2002 has been from oil or coal interests."

In other words Soon received $100K a year to do research at *Harvard* whereas Phil Jones receives a whole Saudi academic appointment that now joins Climategate University right on his published paper for HadCRUT4 as his associated university.

And then you PLAY THE RACE CARD ON A SCIENCE FORUM, desperately.
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (16) Nov 25, 2013
V(E)...both Gore and Jones were in the pocket of Arab oil money influence, and both of them had to eventually admit it by accepting hugely public professional donations from Arab oil countries. Even Hansen's NASA is now forced to grovel in their official mission statement:

"When I became the NASA administrator -- or before I became the NASA administrator -- he charged me with three things. One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering," - Charles Bolden, 2010

(1) Al = Arabic sell out
(2) Phil = Arab sell out
(3) Charles = Arab sell out

Alarmism 101: "Skeptics = Big Oil sell outs."

HYPOCRISY in spades!

Now add media alarm profiteering.

Checkmate.
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (18) Nov 25, 2013
V(E) begs: "You are quoting Alzheimer disease Tardieboy. Dyson is 91 years old...."

Here Freeman, one of the greatest contemporary physicists, several years ago with great clarity points out that models that focus on the atmosphere and treat poorly understood vegetation as a minor subservient and passive parameter (where the *bulk* of carbon exists in the carbon cycle) get the emphasis exactly backwards:
http://youtu.be/JTSxubKfTBU

But most of all note the desperado's demeanor of typical alarmist Vendicar(E). You dear alarmist reader, he is your spokesperson, a proud Gorebot, seething with desperate hatred so that he be rendered good in the face of mentally constructed evil.

(A) Race Card
(B) Pedophile Card
(C) Senility Card

All groundless, as he is well aware, and thus *dishonest*.
ForFreeMinds
1.7 / 5 (18) Nov 25, 2013
Of course "carbon dioxide could warm Earth for centuries" based on an incomplete computer model of the atmosphere, just as it could do something else. Given the inaccuracy of such models to explain the temperature, one shouldn't believe them.

Besides, the research about what cooling/warming does for us, is also lacking. From what I've seen, increasing temperatures appear to be a good thing for humans. Though there are winners/losers thanks to climate (people have been getting killed by the climate since they've existed, farmers' prospects depend on the weather), allowing the government to do the picking, rather than nature/God itself, isn't fair to the losers for whom government creates additional burdens besides nature. And also a burden these researchers created for taxpayers, for which I'd be embarrassed, as I expect most of them would prefer to keep the fruit of their labors than support these researchers.
Agomemnon
1.9 / 5 (18) Nov 25, 2013
Rigorous application of the scientific method would end this ridiculous fear mongering politicization climate-change hysteria nonesense.

NikFromNYC
1 / 5 (16) Nov 25, 2013
Watts Up With That comments on this study:
http://wattsupwit...t-model/

Bill_W: "I'm glad that they published this important work based on a single climate model. Now they can try the other 75 climate models one at a time and publish 75 more papers. I presume that they picked a model in the middle so they can publish 38 more papers saying it is even worserer than we thought in the last paper. Then if it does get cool, they can start on the climate models on the other end and work backwards. It's called climate simulation masturbation. And we pay for it."

Stuart Elliot: "To take this model seriously means dismissing all lesser previous models, which is a nice start. But there is still a leap of faith…"those were rubbish but this one isn't" / Still, nice to hear the science ain't settled."

Two Labs: "Model outputs are not data. / Will this madness ever end?"

mikelowe2013: "Strange how this turkey thinks that atmospheric warming is likely to continue for hundreds of years after CO2 emissions cease, yet that warming seems to have ceased already even though CO2 continues to rise. Is there something I've missed here, or is he totally delusional / irrational?"
The Alchemist
1.3 / 5 (16) Nov 27, 2013
Aside from the fact that thermodynamically it would take 10x the current amount of CO2 for us to even notice, and even then it would drive a different equilibrium.
Aside from the fact the up until recently ~20 years, the Earth's were sinking CO2.
Aside from the fact the Earth's ice has absorbed/melted 2x10^14 joules per year for at least 30 years to get to its current state, and the atmosphere is dynamically retaining the same amount, despite heat capacity being unchanged by CO2.
Yet we still hear about it, and not the simple heat being added.
If you believe the Earth's atmosphere-it's temperature has somehow semi-/permanently changed you must acknowledge that CO2 is hardly the problem.
The Alchemist
1.3 / 5 (15) Nov 27, 2013
? ? Aside from the fact that thermodynamically it would take 10x the current amount of CO2 for us to even notice, and even then it would drive a different equilibrium.
Aside from the fact the up until recently, ~20 years, the Earth's oceans were sinking more CO2 than man could remotely produce.
Aside from the fact the Earth's ice has absorbed/melted 2x10^14 joules per year for at least 30 years to get to its current state, and the atmosphere is dynamically retaining the same amount, despite heat capacity being unchanged by CO2.
Yet we still hear about it, and not the simple heat being added.
If you believe the Earth's atmosphere-it's temperature has somehow semi-/permanently changed you must acknowledge that CO2 is hardly the problem.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 27, 2013
Just out of curiosity, by your estimation the air in a blast furnace wouldnt begin to get hot until the ore had melted. Is this something you believe?
triplehelix
1.7 / 5 (17) Nov 28, 2013
Increase carbon - It'll get warmer/colder (depending what happens)
Decrease carbon - It'll get warmer/colder (depending what happens)
Same carbon - It'll get warmer/colder (depending what happens)

1998 they said it would warm like mad, 2010 onwards, especially 2013, the IPCC etc have had to admit it's stable, if not declining slightly. So guess what- They scurry off and then say actually, it makes sense that it's getting cooler or the warming is levelling off.

There is literally no way to disprove global warming, as soon as it's predictions don't come true, a magical statistical technique appears that says it should happen, so then all predictions follow this, until the trend changes, and then the same magical technique raises its head to flip round from cooling to warming.

The fact no matter what happens, more/less of variable x y z, you are guaranteed it is "expected" despite not being predicted. When something is literally not disprovable, it becomes a religion, not science.
triplehelix
1.9 / 5 (18) Nov 28, 2013
All sciences are disprovable (hypothetically!)

Evolution - Find a modern day rabbit skeleton next to a T-rex
Germ theory - Contaminate a petri dish and nothing grows / something different grows
Theory of gravity - Something doesn't fall when it should.

The 3 above will never happen, but the point is, hypothetically, they are disprovable. Their are ways and means to disprove them.

Name me what it would take to disprove anthropogenic global warming, to show it is at least HYPOTHETICALLY possible to be disproved.

Name me ONE thing that would disprove it.

Guarantee nobody here does this, because

1. It'll have happened already, thus disproving it, so they won't mention it

2. Because it is a religion, and when asking religious members what it would take to stop believing in their divine being, they say "nothing!"
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (14) Nov 28, 2013
Headline: "Even if emissions stop, carbon dioxide could warm Earth for centuries"

...you mean like how that's happening now?

http://www.woodfo....7/trend

Strange... I don't see it.

Steve Case
1.7 / 5 (18) Nov 28, 2013
HADCRUT4 says temperatures are up about 0.8°C since 1850. If the models and their 3.2°C claim for the climate sensitivity of CO2 were correct temperatures should have gone up about double that over those 163 years. It hasn't, the models are wrong.

In 1998 the temperature spike was above what the models predicted. The models were wrong.

Today, the temperatures are below what the models predicted. The models are wrong.

The models were wrong in 1998 and they're wrong today.

VendicarE
2.8 / 5 (6) Nov 28, 2013
.you mean like how that's happening now?

Yup

http://www.woodfo...97/trend

"Strange... I don't see it." - UbvonTard

That is because you continue to use a data set that omits most of the polar regions, and then within that set you cherry pick intervals that show what you want them to show.

Why else would you be setting to starting year to a fractional value?

You are a liar. Pure and simple
You lie with every breath
Lying is your life.
Lying is what you do.
Lying is the reason you exist.

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire.....
VendicarE
2.8 / 5 (6) Nov 28, 2013
"If the models and their 3.2°C claim for the climate sensitivity of CO2 were correct temperatures should have gone up about double that over those 163 years. It hasn't, the models are wrong. " - SteveNutCase

Sorry TardieBoy but no model claims a sensitivity of 3.2;'C.

All models produce a statistical range of values for their estimates of climate sensitivity.

It will take another 5 years or so for the climate to demonstrate a definitive deviation from the model predictions.

But even if current rates of warming are maintained, we are still in for an additional 1'C of warming by 2100, and then an additional 2'C beyond that as the oceans catch up with the atmosphere.

VendicarE
2.8 / 5 (6) Nov 28, 2013
"Name me ONE thing that would disprove it." - TripleTard

30 years of continuous global cooling.

Do you intend to remain a fool for the rest of your life?
VendicarE
3 / 5 (6) Nov 28, 2013
"Here Freeman, one of the greatest contemporary physicists, several years ago with great clarity" - NikkieTard

Odd how Freeman (91 years old) doesn't remember that his own research group (Jason) came to the same conclusions as the IPCC back in the 70's.

Alzheimers is like that.
triplehelix
1.6 / 5 (16) Nov 28, 2013
"Name me ONE thing that would disprove it." - TripleTard

30 years of continuous global cooling.

Do you intend to remain a fool for the rest of your life?


Well good, because we're about to have one hell of a heavy cold session. Please do remember that we have had cooling since 1998, so we're already half way through.

Of course, as you are religious to climate change, I am sure you won't accept this fact, just like evolution deniers saying the fossils don't prove anything.

Keep your circular logic to yourself thanks.
triplehelix
1.5 / 5 (16) Nov 28, 2013
Let me just say this. We have all read the CRU emails, how many were worried about their model mathematics getting into public knowledge.

As a scientist, I take great pride in figuring things out, and displaying my maths, my methods, my workings, my conclusions, and my admitted limitations to other people, to discuss, discover, debate, and research more. Most scientists, when inventing something, discovering something, learning something, want to publish. They want their data out there. They want their data with their name on it to say "Look, I discovered that". It gives most scientists a massive smile, and a sense of accomplishing in a great subject field this Universe has to offer.

Climate scientists are the opposite. They want their model codes secret, and they dont want to publish or show raw data for many papers, only manipulated data.

Doesn't that raise alarm bells in anyones heads? I know that doesn't disprove AGW. But it speaks volumes about the people researching it....
VendicarE
3.1 / 5 (9) Nov 28, 2013
"Well good, because we're about to have one hell of a heavy cold session" - TripleTard

That seems highly unlikely given that every year in the last 20 years has been in the top ten warmest years ever recorded.

This year will come in as the 7th warmest year in the last 2,000 years, and the temperature trend is up, up, up.

Fundamental science, science that has been known for the last 150 years, Science that is integral to everything that came after it, Science that has been verified by countless experiments and applications, Science that is regularly verified by high school students, That science tells us that adding CO2 to the atmosphere must warm the plant.

The fact that your Political ideology tells you something else, shows how devoid of reason your political ideology is.

VendicarE
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 28, 2013
"Please do remember that we have had cooling since 1998" - TripleTard

Really? Why does the data call you a liar?

http://www.woodfo...98/trend

You do realize that the trend like slopes upward from left to right, don't you?

http://www.woodfo...98/trend

Do you intend to remain a liar for the rest of your life?

http://www.woodfo...98/trend
VendicarE
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 28, 2013
"We have all read the CRU emails" - TripleTard

Yup. Full of scientific banter that you can't understand.

"As a scientist, I take great pride in figuring things out" - TripleTard

The only place that you are a scientist, TardieBoy is in your imagination.

You have now lied twice in one post. Claiming the world has cooled since 1980, and claiming that you are a scientist.

Liar, Liar... Pants on Fire...

ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 29, 2013
That is because you continue to use a data set that omits most of the polar regions, and then within that set you cherry pick intervals that show what you want them to show.
Oh please. HadCRUT4 was intentionally manipulated to show increased warming in the late 20th century. And it's not as valued as HadCRUT3, by the scientific community. Since 2012, papers citing HadCRUT3 (only) outnumber HadCRUT4 (only) papers nearly two to one (and a lot of the HadCRUT4 papers are just trying to justify HadCRUT4).

Funny isn't it that HadCRUT4 also shows a pause? ...a pause lasting more than a dozen years:

http://www.woodfo....6/trend

LOL. Even when they TRIED to eliminate the pause, they just couldn't!

Poor Vendi-chatterbot. It just can't stop lying.
Lying is its programming
Lying is what it does.
Lying is what it was made to do.
Lying is the chatterbot way.

Liar, liar, hard drive on fire.....
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 29, 2013
30 years of continuous global cooling.
Hmm... doesn't look exactly continuous to me...

http://www.woodfo....7/trend

ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 29, 2013
That seems highly unlikely given that every year in the last 20 years has been in the top ten warmest years ever recorded.
Well, this establishes you can't even do simple math...

This year will come in as the 7th warmest year in the last 2,000 years, and the temperature trend is up, up, up.
Really? I don't see it...

http://www.woodfo....7/trend

Fundamental science, science that has been known for the last 150 years, Science that is integral to everything that came after it, Science that has been verified by countless experiments and applications, Science that is regularly verified by high school students, That science tells us that adding CO2 to the atmosphere must warm the plant.
Warm the "plant?"

ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 29, 2013
Really? Why does the data call you a liar?
Looks like you're the liar:

http://www.woodfo....7/trend

You do realize that the trend like slopes upward from left to right, don't you?
Obviously:

http://www.woodfo....7/trend

Do you intend to remain a liar for the rest of your life?
Lying is what you do.

http://www.woodfo....7/trend


triplehelix
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 29, 2013

That seems highly unlikely given that every year in the last 20 years has been in the top ten warmest years ever recorded.

This year will come in as the 7th warmest year in the last 2,000 years, and the temperature trend is up, up, up.

Fundamental science, science that has been known for the last 150 years, Science that is integral to everything that came after it, Science that has been verified by countless experiments and applications, Science that is regularly verified by high school students, That science tells us that adding CO2 to the atmosphere must warm the plant.

The fact that your Political ideology tells you something else, shows how devoid of reason your political ideology is.



Last laugh is on you. I am a liberal, not a conservative. Bad luck I am afraid. I am however, a scientist, unlike you.

Warmest years in what season? What geographic region? The OVERALL trend is down down down. The fact you use ad hominem attacks (calling me retard) speaks for itself
triplehelix
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 29, 2013
"We have all read the CRU emails" - TripleTard

Yup. Full of scientific banter that you can't understand.

"As a scientist, I take great pride in figuring things out" - TripleTard

The only place that you are a scientist, TardieBoy is in your imagination.

You have now lied twice in one post. Claiming the world has cooled since 1980, and claiming that you are a scientist.

Liar, Liar... Pants on Fire...



Actually, it has been cooling since 1998, never said 1980, you wanted 30 years cooling trend, I said were halfway there, 1998-2013 is 15 years. Simple maths too much for you?

Actually the emails weren't scientific banter. It was full of climate scientists shit scared about the public getting the mathematics and coding of their models. Most scientists take great pride in being creators of true science...

I am a professional scientist, shall we take this to PM where I can prove it to you? I would rather not display publically as many people here are blatantly trolls.
The Alchemist
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 29, 2013
NASA says the average temperature of the Earth has risen 0.15C in 30 years, with the greatest increase recently. Less ice is able to cool, and it gets further away from the habitable regions. I have no reason to doubt NASA.
http://images.sea...ration+%
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 29, 2013
NASA says the average temperature of the Earth has risen 0.15C in 30 years, with the greatest increase recently. Less ice is able to cool, and it gets further away from the habitable regions. I have no reason to doubt NASA.
Temperatures refuse to climb:

http://www.woodfo....7/trend

Antarctic ice continues to creep northward:

http://arctic.atm...ctic.png

And global sea ice has recovered so abruptly scientists are beginning to fear a period of global cooling is at hand:

"2013 saw substantially more (Arctic) ice at summer's end ...in the Antarctic, sea ice reached the highest extent recorded in the satellite record."

http://nsidc.org/...icenews/

And STILL the AGW alarmists whine. What will it take to satisfy them?

The Alchemist
1.8 / 5 (15) Nov 29, 2013
@Uba
You do know your charts are interactive, and if you plug in 30 years, temperature changes, right?
And your arctic ice articles reflect seasonal changes.

As line judge, I'll have to rule the point against you. With a 30 yard penalty for cheating.

Why are people so interested in this issue they are willing to lie and subvert reality?

I can see drawing poor conclusions from data, that is unavoidable, we all do that under the best of conditions, but this?

triplehelix
1.9 / 5 (14) Nov 29, 2013
Still waiting for the PM vendicar. You're obviously a fucking troll.
triplehelix
1.6 / 5 (13) Nov 29, 2013


NASA says the average temperature of the Earth has risen 0.15C in 30 years, with the greatest increase recently. Less ice is able to cool, and it gets further away from the habitable regions. I have no reason to doubt NASA.
Temperatures refuse to climb:

http://www.woodfo....7/trend

And STILL the AGW alarmists whine. What will it take to satisfy them?



FFS, no one doubts the rise in temperatures, the question is if it is natural or man-made.

Most scientists isolate variables, aka, measuring human impact vs non human impact. We have one planet, it cannot be done. It is hilarously amatuer.

Because NASA is high up you believe them? Thats religion. I care little for a scientists or science foundations renown. It is all about literal evidence and truth.
triplehelix
1.6 / 5 (13) Nov 29, 2013
Vendicar, you're downvoting me yet refuse to PM me, which I have asked, to prove my validity as a scientist.

Your are obviously a fucking troll, and don't wish to know the truth.

Try to work to my accuracy and deadlines, you'll find it difficult. I have to work to 0.001% error bars, which enviro scientists never see.

Phys.org is full of fake wannabe scientists.
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 29, 2013
@The Alchemist

You do know your charts are interactive, and if you plug in 30 years, temperature changes, right?
Of course, as there was some warming prior to the last 16 years. I have not claimed otherwise.

And your arctic ice articles reflect seasonal changes.
What I quoted had to do with the Arctic summer minimum.

As line judge, I'll have to rule the point against you. With a 30 yard penalty for cheating.
Then you're a lousy line judge. The instant replay verifies my score.

Why are people so interested in this issue they are willing to lie and subvert reality?
I don't know, why do you lie about it?

I can see drawing poor conclusions from data, that is unavoidable, we all do that under the best of conditions, but this?
Apparently, you draw poor conclusions often then.

Do you even know the standard definition of the term, "global warming?" Do you accept it?

The Alchemist
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 30, 2013
@Uba
No I don't accept it!
It is a term designed to cause dissension and obfuscation.
What would it mean to raise the Earth's temperature? It fluctuates daily, and can vent heat daily. It boggles the intelligent mind to even set a system of conditions where "raising the temperature of the Earth" means anything. Imagine what would happen if you had an array of dense heaters programmed to raise the temp of the Earth everywhere 1 degree, what would they do?
See what I mean?
That we are adding Energy to the Earth system is undeniable, 8.4 nukes worth of energy is semi-irreversibly and quantifiablily dumped into our planet every year.
Warming, if it were happening is a secondary effect to the primary damage.

Wow, yes, I do draw poor conclusions often, then I examine them, realize it and correct.
I am not perfect like the other folks on this site. Perfectly right and perfectly wrong.
If you weren't trying to mis-construe, why did you present facts the were not germane to the topic?
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 30, 2013
@The Alchemist,

No I don't accept it!
It is a term designed to cause dissension and obfuscation.
"Designed" by whom?

That we are adding Energy to the Earth system is undeniable
Supposedly it's not about the energy "added," but rather the energy retained.

Warming, if it were happening is a secondary effect to the primary damage.
What damage?

why did you present facts the were not germane to the topic?
What facts did I present that you think were not germane to the topic?

VendicarE
3.1 / 5 (7) Nov 30, 2013
"Hmm... doesn't look exactly continuous to me..." - UbvonTard

Why do you continue to omit most of the polar regions in your plot TardieBoy?

If you include more of the globe you get...

http://www.woodfo...97/trend

UbvonTard is a congenital liar.
He lives to lie
Lying is his life.
He can't get though composing a single message without lying.
Lying is what he lives for.

VendicarE
3 / 5 (7) Nov 30, 2013

"Actually, it has been cooling since 1998" - TripleTard

You can repeat your lie all you like and it will never change the reality.

Here is the reality...

http://www.woodfo...97/trend
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 30, 2013
Why do you continue to omit most of the polar regions in your plot?

If you include more of the globe you get...
Oh please. HadCRUT4 was intentionally manipulated to show increased warming in the late 20th century. And it's not as valued as HadCRUT3, by the scientific community. Since 2012, papers citing HadCRUT3 (only) outnumber HadCRUT4 (only) papers nearly two to one (and a lot of the HadCRUT4 papers are just trying to justify HadCRUT4).

Funny isn't it that HadCRUT4 also shows a pause? ...a pause lasting more than a dozen years:

http://www.woodfo....6/trend

LOL. Even when they TRIED to eliminate the pause, they just couldn't!

Poor Vendi-chatterbot. It just can't stop lying.
Lying is its programming
Lying is what it does.
Lying is what it was made to do.
Lying is the chatterbot way.

Shootist
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 30, 2013
algore or Freeman Dyson.

Who do you believe?
The Alchemist
1.1 / 5 (12) Nov 30, 2013
Designed by those who benefit from there NOT being resolution.
Energy added vs retained:
At last we have some trade-space!
Thermodynamically, the atmosphere and terra-firma do not retain heat significant amounts of time. Which is why the term "warming" in GW is so objectionable and deliberately contentious. Even psychologically, if there were noticeable warming joe-average could contest.
Ice melting and then not reforming, ergo 6cm increase in the ocean levels, are both not argued much by either side, and definitive proof of energy retention, and if the much more than 30 year trend continues, proof that we perpetually add energy to the system.

PS-I can't believe you are still reading Vendi's posts. He's a cancer on the site, he doesn't hurt if you ignore him. Like his alter-ego NikfromNY, and whomever else they are...
The Alchemist
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 30, 2013
What does a pause mean? It means some kind of change has occurred. LeChatlier's Principle.
Well, what is it?
It may be simply that just as an ice-cube melts faster as it gets smaller, and so the polar and other ice reservoirs are able to dump cooling water into the Earth-system faster. Winds have increased, which means heat is being transferred more rapidly.
Or perhaps using corn and non-fossil fuel sources are adding to a zero-sum increase in heat, I even suspect that we recycle better, have you noticed that water bottles burn very cleanly?
Interesting times.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 30, 2013
Designed by those who benefit from there NOT being resolution.
And who are "they?"

Energy added vs retained:
At last we have some trade-space!
Thermodynamically, the atmosphere and terra-firma do not retain heat significant amounts of time. Which is why the term "warming" in GW is so objectionable and deliberately contentious. Even psychologically, if there were noticeable warming joe-average could contest.
So it's that it's contestable that bothers you? If it's not contestable, how is it provable?

Ice melting and then not reforming, ergo 6cm increase in the ocean levels, are both not argued much by either side, and definitive proof of energy retention, and if the much more than 30 year trend continues, proof that we perpetually add energy to the system.
How is this proof of anything? Did you not know sea levels have been rising for thousands of years (hence the lack of argument)?

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 30, 2013
PS-I can't believe you are still reading Vendi's posts. He's a cancer on the site,
Indeed.

What does a pause mean? It means some kind of change has occurred. LeChatlier's Principle.
Well, what is it?
Global warming, by definition, stopped about 16+or- years ago.

It may be simply that just as an ice-cube melts faster as it gets smaller, and so the polar and other ice reservoirs are able to dump cooling water into the Earth-system faster.
What are you talking about? Antarctic ice is setting records, and Arctic ice is doing okay too.

Winds have increased, which means heat is being transferred more rapidly.
What winds, where?

Or perhaps using corn and non-fossil fuel sources are adding to a zero-sum increase in heat, I even suspect that we recycle better,
Renewables are only a small fraction of total energy consumption.

have you noticed that water bottles burn very cleanly?
Burning plastics releases toxins into the environment.

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 30, 2013
Interesting times.
I can't help but notice you post a lot of unsubstantiated assertions. Is AGW all about "believing" then?

____________
Nov 30, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
The Alchemist
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 01, 2013
@Uba,
Even before 16 years ago!
Temperature increase could never be the primary effect of adding heat or insulation to the Earth system. A secondary as a transient between equilibriums, perhaps. Ice melting is, for example.

Propose a mechanism where it could be. The equipartition theorem fights you all the way.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (10) Dec 01, 2013
@Uba,
Even before 16 years ago!
Temperature increase could never be the primary effect of adding heat or insulation to the Earth system. A secondary as a transient between equilibriums, perhaps. Ice melting is, for example.

Propose a mechanism where it could be. The equipartition theorem fights you all the way.
Propose your own mechanism.

The Alchemist
Dec 02, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (11) Dec 02, 2013
By the way, fans of the Alchemist must admit I predicted the publicity campaign that is this "Pause" quite a while ago. I didn't know what they would call it, but even Vendi the Hth, must admit (because he was a strident mocker) that I saw it coming.

By the way, MY own little theory still holds water.
Yes, I am smug.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (8) Dec 03, 2013
That's right pleebs, vote me down; I've got my genius to keep me warm.
LOL
goracle
1 / 5 (2) Dec 10, 2013
"Here Freeman, one of the greatest contemporary physicists, several years ago with great clarity" - NikkieTard

Odd how Freeman (91 years old) doesn't remember that his own research group (Jason) came to the same conclusions as the IPCC back in the 70's.

Alzheimers is like that.

I recall Richard Phillips Feynman. Who is this 'Freeman'?