CO2 warming effects felt just a decade after being emitted

December 2, 2014
Greenhouse effect schematic showing energy flows between space, the atmosphere, and Earth's surface. Energy influx and emittance are expressed in watts per square meter (W/m2). Credit: Robert A. Rohde/Wikimedia Commons

It takes just 10 years for a single emission of carbon dioxide (CO2) to have its maximum warming effects on the Earth.

This is according to researchers at the Carnegie Institute for Science who have dispelled a common misconception that the main warming effects from a CO2 emission will not be felt for several decades.

The results, which have been published today, 3 December, in IOP Publishing's journal Environmental Research Letters, also confirm that warming can persist for more than a century and suggest that the benefits from emission reductions will be felt by those who have worked to curb the emissions and not just future generations.

Some of these benefits would be the avoidance of , such as droughts, heatwaves and flooding, which are expected to increase concurrently with the change in temperature.

However, some of the bigger impacts from warming, such as sea-level rise, melting ice sheets and long-lasting damage to ecosystems, will have a much bigger time lag and may not occur for hundreds or thousands of years later, according to the researchers.

Lead author of the study Dr Katharine Ricke said: "Amazingly, despite many decades of climate science, there has never been a study focused on how long it takes to feel the warming from a particular emission of , taking carbon-climate uncertainties into consideration.

"A lot of climate scientists may have an intuition about how long it takes to feel the warming from a particular emission of CO2, but that intuition might be a little bit out of sync with our best estimates from today's climate and carbon cycle models."

To calculate this timeframe, Dr Ricke, alongside Professor Ken Caldeira, combined results from two climate modelling projects.

The researchers combined information about the Earth's —specifically how quickly the ocean and biosphere took up a large pulse of CO2 into the atmosphere—with information about the Earth's climate system taken from a group of climate models used in the latest IPCC assessment.

The results showed that the median time between a single CO2 and maximum warming was 10.1 years, and reaffirmed that most of the warming persists for more than a century.

The reason for this time lag is because the upper layers of the oceans take longer to heat up than the atmosphere. As the oceans take up more and more heat which causes the overall climate to warm up, the warming effects of CO2 emissions actually begin to diminish as CO2 is eventually removed from the atmosphere. It takes around 10 years for these two competing factors to cancel each other out and for warming to be at a maximum.

"Our results show that people alive today are very likely to benefit from emissions avoided today and that these will not accrue solely to impact future generations," Dr Ricke continued.

"Our findings should dislodge previous misconceptions about this timeframe that have played a key part in the failure to reach policy consensus."

Explore further: Climate change: Fast out of the gate, slow to the finish the gate

More information: 'Maximum warming occurs about one decade after a carbon dioxide emission'(2014 Environ. Res. Lett. 9 124002. iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/12/124002/article

Related Stories

Ocean biota responds to global warming according to study

December 2, 2014

As the Earth warmed coming out of the last ice age, the rate of plankton production off the Pacific Northwest coast decreased, a new study has found, though the amount of organic material making its way to the deep ocean ...

Recommended for you

Wind-blown Antarctic sea ice helps drive ocean circulation

June 27, 2016

Antarctic sea ice is constantly on the move as powerful winds blow it away from the coast and out toward the open ocean. A new study shows how that ice migration may be more important for the global ocean circulation than ...

59 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Terry Oldberg
2.1 / 5 (15) Dec 02, 2014
In publishing this article the editors of phys.org have demonstrated their inability to distinguish pseudoscience from science..
TruGhost_OfBo
2.1 / 5 (15) Dec 02, 2014
Hey phys.org
In your case it's called a hot flash. More pseudo science from Academic Alarmist Alchemist, shyster LOONer modelers

Terry Oldberg
1.9 / 5 (14) Dec 02, 2014
The headline "CO2 warming effects felt just a decade after being emitted" is an application of the fallacy that is known as "misplaced concreteness" aka "reification." In misplaced concreteness abstract are conflated with concrete objects. In this case an abstract Earth is conflated with the concrete Earth.
dev_dangol
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 02, 2014
Fake science. GHG / GHE due to gases is ridiculous. Troposphere is not layered, it is a homogenous mixture of gases; if it were layered CO2, the heaviest gas would be at the bottom not on top. If it were GHE it would be always warm since the sun always shines on the half of the earth. Freely moving molecules so gases move up when heated to transmit heat by convection method. Troposphere is exposed to space not closed. There are many established physical laws that do not support GHG ideas / GHE due to gases
dev_dangol
1 / 5 (11) Dec 02, 2014
The main reason for global warming is due to the mistake done by human being for explaining the rain cycle wrong way that it occurs by the evaporation of the sea water. If it were so, now-a-days we should have rains more often than in the old days – global warming and expansion of the sea surface, both are favorable for evaporation needed for rain cycle. Sea surface temperature (average 15C) is not hot enough to lift water vapour to form cloud needed for the rain cycle. If that is possible we will have rains all the time, (even during winter we have that temperature in Nepal on the average).

We are making more and more land areas drier and drier by urbanization - covering land by concretes, black top roads, deforestation, and expanding deserts. So evaporation from the land areas is decreasing, as a result cooling of the land areas is decreasing significantly. Land areas are hotter than sea surface temperature.
devbahadurdongol.blogspot.com
mbee1
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 02, 2014
This is a model, not actual facts or data, it is a computer model which is GIGO. Lets test this model. CO2 went up from 1880 to 1912, average world temperatures declined. CO2 went up from 1940 to 1980, average world temperatures stayed the same. CO2 went up from 1998 to 2014, average world temperatures have not risen. Something is seriously wrong with both the ethics of the study persons and the studies model.
mbee1
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 02, 2014
While some have their facts all rearranged in a manner unrecognizable to a scientist it would be helpful to look at the actual data which can be wikied if nothing else. The troposphere is broken up into several layers, the mid and lower and a higher part. The troposphere has not shown a trend in 55 years which would suggest warming or cooling is not occurring. Another tidbit is water evaporates even when it is frozen, it just evaporates at a lesser rate. Freeze dry anyone? The temperature of the oceans is high enough to evaporate plenty of water which is why hurricanes form in the open ocean not over New York city. To turn that vapor into rain requires a speck of dust, salt crystal, bacteria or some other solid on which the water will freeze. And yes land is generally warmer than the ocean as it is better insulated so the heat energy stays near the surface where it gets reflected back into space.
earl_decker_33
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 02, 2014
We are being bombarded with all these new research articles and most are done using unreliable data and fed into a computer to make these models that none have been accurate in actual weather observations. I guess these researcher have to make a living somehow as well as for the newspapers, journals and journalists that report these articles. There is nothing scientific about these research studies as all the models leave out numerous variables and have inaccurate climate and weather formulas It takes millions of accurate numerical weather and climatology data for models to make accurate predictions and incorrect or mistakes made in data entry will have adverse effects in the final product as evidenced in past failed models.
Terry Oldberg
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 02, 2014
mbee1 calls for testing of the model. This model, however, belongs to a class of models that that are insusceptible to being tested with the outcome of being falsified or validated by the evidence. Models belonging to this class make "projections." Models that are susceptible to being tested with the outcome of being falsified or validated by the evidence make "predictions."
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (15) Dec 02, 2014
Can any AGW denier, whether scientific or philosophical or even casual hobby commenter explain or suggest:-

"How can adding a greenhouse gas such as CO2 (with known proven, for >100yrs, thermal properties of re-radiation) to the atmosphere NOT increase thermal resistivity?"

When someone answers this it would be appropriate (& mature) to include some basic physics.

FWIW: Here is a news story aired on Australian TV recently which goes into some depth re so called wildfires in USA as well as Australia & its connection with climate change re ~50yrs

http://www.abc.ne...4144.htm

This link also ire climate change, from a site often used incorrectly (ie 30yr climate) by AGW deniers, plots include identifying source provenance eg Hadcrut etc...

http://woodfortre....9/trend

http://www.woodfo...o2/every
Terry Oldberg
2.2 / 5 (13) Dec 03, 2014
Mike Massen:

An argument that employs a characterization of one's opponent as a premise, for example he or she is an "AGW denier," is an example of an ad hominem argument and is illogical.
Mike_Massen
3.8 / 5 (16) Dec 03, 2014
Terry Oldberg claimed
An argument that employs a characterization of one's opponent as a premise, for example he or she is an "AGW denier," is an example of an ad hominem argument and is illogical.
Not a particularly good example there Terry Oldberg as I haven't identified the person who is observed to be a 'denier', especially re this definition:-
http://en.wikiped..._hominem

Can you explain why you are not being hypocritical by attacking me personally claiming I am being "illogical" ?

Does this mean you classify yourself as an arbitrary AGW denier ?

So what should we label (if at all) when we come across people who purposefully skew graphical data eg By picking a startpoint to try to show cooling when the full data shows warming ?

Obviously they cannot be labelled as "skeptics" & they certainly appear to NOT wish to gain an education in Physics or even the maths of physics ie Probability & Statistics.

How about answering my question re CO2 then ?
Terry Oldberg
1.8 / 5 (10) Dec 03, 2014
Mike Massen:

There is no hypocrisy in calling out a fellow debater for introducing a fallacy into his/her argument. If you can make an argument regarding the CO2 that is of the form of a syllogism, This argument will then merit the respect of all of the participants in this thread.
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (15) Dec 03, 2014
Ren82 claimed
...Without this simple inexpensive and effective measure expensive methods for reducing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will not produce the desired effect but will cause problems in the economy,...
Why do u imagine its simple & inexpensive ?

Re-forestation takes time & has issues re locations, labour mobilisation ?

U checked how much CO2 is metabolised by Ocean plant-life vs forests ?

Data from your education & RESEARCH in this specific field U have an opinion on ?

In meantime please download & view the video on this link, it has aspects re forestation which sheds light on more advanced factors you have NOT been aware of the make the post you just did :-(

http://www.abc.ne...4144.htm

Please be complete, watch the video & offer scientific based feedback here - ok ?

Previously you claimed there was an alternate explanation re your deity & einstein's relativity, so PLEASE tell how your deity explains SR/GR ?
Mike_Massen
3.5 / 5 (16) Dec 03, 2014
Terry Oldberg mutters
There is no hypocrisy in calling out a fellow debater for introducing a fallacy into his/her argument. If you can make an argument regarding the CO2 that is of the form of a syllogism, This argument will then merit the respect of all of the participants in this thread.
So what ?
Why does it or Should it in any way detract from some enthusiastic knowledgeable person who does not believe in climate change from answering my question re CO2 thermal resistivity ?

So you are complaining at the tone of my judgmental claim re "deniers" - yes ?

What then should we call people that deny the facts of AGW - disbelievers - what precisely ?

Especially so such that we may actually get them to answer the question I posed ?

Can you see yourself that you haven't answered all the questions I posed to you, did you not read my whole post ?

&

"Do you accept there are people who purposefully obfuscate AGW by raising doubt falsifying climate change occurs?"
Mike_Massen
3.5 / 5 (16) Dec 03, 2014
Terry Oldberg claimed
There is no hypocrisy in calling out a fellow debater for introducing a fallacy into his/her argument.
Are you also claiming there is an intrinsic fallacy in my question (please articulate that?) here is another paste so its perfectly Clear for you - no label of anyone's personal beliefs then to address your complaint:-

"How can adding a greenhouse gas such as CO2 (with known proven, for >100yrs, thermal properties of re-radiation) to the atmosphere NOT increase thermal resistivity ?"

Look forward to you focusing on the Physics as it might be claimed by some people you are obfuscating as well though intended to be more subtle the effect is the same... Otherwise what practical value is your complaint I class people as deniers when their activities prove it ?

Physics - yeah ?
Terry Oldberg
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 03, 2014
Mike Massen

In your various posts I observe that you have not yet made an argument that is of the form of a syllogism. Thus, you have left us without reason for belief in your various assertions. Replacing syllogisms have been attempts to prejudice readers against the claims of opponents of yours by disparaging these opponents as "deniers." Rather than attack the allegedly false claims of these "deniers" you attack their persons by calling them a disparaging name.

If you have them, its not too late for you to provide us with one or more syllogisms regarding the CO2. What are they?
Mike_Massen
3.6 / 5 (14) Dec 03, 2014
Terry Oldberg claimed
In your various posts I observe that you have not yet made an argument that is of the form of a syllogism.
First to be clear & for others reading this it is helpful to apprise definition of 'syllogism':-
http://en.wikiped...yllogism

"A syllogism is a kind of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two or more propositions that are asserted or assumed to be true."

Question
"How can adding a greenhouse gas such as CO2 (with known proven, for >100yrs, thermal properties of re-radiation) to the atmosphere NOT increase thermal resistivity?"

How can u claim there aren't "syllogistic" aspects to that question ?

ie
Greenhouse gas ?
Proven thermal properties of re-radiation ?
Thermal Resistivity ?

Your objection re syllogism, Still appears to obfuscate towards an answer, are satisfied within the question, so can anyone answer my question ?

Did u see my other questions to u ?

Physics ?
Mike_Massen
3.5 / 5 (13) Dec 03, 2014
Have been toying with this site's configurable plots, sometimes too many options to explore, those pesky permutations again, please note the Provenance as mentioned here:-
http://www.woodfo.../credits

Have arranged to get a passably useful plot of hadcrut4 with CO2 on same graph here:-

http://woodfortre...ormalise

Correlation of interest to those which seem to have faith no such relationship appears - when I say interest, I would like to see actual substantive refutation, not political diatribe or claims I removed some data or fudged anything at all - be genuine you arbitrary denier clan !

Havent as yet found way to put scale on right hand axis re CO2 ppm, anyone have an idea ?
KDK
1 / 5 (7) Dec 03, 2014
Did they learn this during the last 18 years of no warming, or the last several years of COOLING--based on Solar Cycle 24 and likely the Milankovitch ice-age cycle as well!
Benni
2.1 / 5 (14) Dec 03, 2014
Mike Massen

In your various posts I observe that you have not yet made an argument that is of the form of a syllogism. Thus, you have left us without reason for belief in your various assertions. Replacing syllogisms have been attempts to prejudice readers against the claims of opponents of yours by disparaging these opponents as "deniers." Rather than attack the allegedly false claims of these "deniers" you attack their persons by calling them a disparaging name.

If you have them, its not too late for you to provide us with one or more syllogisms regarding the CO2. What are they?


MM's problem is his fundamentally weak background in the foundations of science & math. His concept of reasoning in terms of science & math goes something like: "Prove 2 + 2 does not equal 5".

You'd think since the year of the infamous 1998 Hockey Stick & the fact CO2 ppm is presently higher by 20%, that he'd have even that simple math figured out. But maybe it's just old age.
runrig
5 / 5 (10) Dec 03, 2014
Did they learn this during the last 18 years of no warming, or the last several years of COOLING--based on Solar Cycle 24 and likely the Milankovitch ice-age cycle as well!

I think you said this before on here.
It was bollocks then and it surely is now.
You could try posting links to some science that backs your assertions of course.
Then you might get away without being called a Troll.
runrig
5 / 5 (9) Dec 03, 2014


You'd think since the year of the infamous 1998 Hockey Stick & the fact CO2 ppm is presently higher by 20%, that he'd have even that simple math figured out. But maybe it's just old age.


2+2 does of course not equal 5 and niether does heat in the atmosphere equal the heat in the climate system.
You do realise that the oceans (~93% of stored heat) in turn heats the atmosphere ?(overwhelmingly).
You are aware of thermodynamics ie heat transfer and the fact that oceans have currents and stratification?
You are aware that the ENSO cycle has been predominantly cool since '98, and that it sinks to deep waters in the W Pacific?
Along with heat absorbed from Solar SW, to be hidden from air contact.
You are aware that from an El Nino to a la Nina reduces heat transfer to air by ~0.4C?
You are aware the GCM's cannot know this before it happens (no predictability) and that error bars are in place to account for this and other uncertainties.
Which the models lie within.
freethinking
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 03, 2014
No global warming in last 17 years

http://www.climat...-months/

Deep ocean temperatures have not risen since 2005
http://science.na...t_abyss/

The phrase Global Warming is like the phrase Hands Up Don't Shoot (Ferguson case) all based on lies perpetrated by Progressives. It is repeated often to get radicals to act radically.

I dare anyone who doesn't believe me to go to a AGW believer, or a Brown believer and calmly and with respect say they are wrong. You'll wind up being yelled/screamed at, stomped, shot, beaten, knifed, threatened all while being told you are the radical.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (14) Dec 03, 2014
You'd think since the year of the infamous 1998 Hockey Stick & the fact CO2 ppm is presently higher by 20%, that he'd have even that simple math figured out. But maybe it's just old age


2+2 does of course not equal 5 and niether does heat in the atmosphere equal the heat in the climate system.
You do realise that the oceans (93% stored heat) in turn heats the atmosphere ?
You are aware of thermodynamics ie heat transfer and the fact that oceans have currents and stratification?
You are aware that the ENSO cycle has been predominantly cool since '98, and that it sinks to deep waters in the W Pacific?
Along with heat absorbed from Solar SW, to be hidden from air contact.
You are aware that from an El Nino to a la Nina reduces heat transfer to air by ~0.4C?
You are aware the GCM's cannot know this before it happens and that error bars are in place to account for this and other uncertainties.


So what does any of the above have to do with ppm of CO2 now vs 1998?

Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (14) Dec 03, 2014
freethinking claimed
No global warming in last 17 years
Climate change is defined as min trend, so site's choice U post is "incomplete" at best but, at worst outright fraud !

freethinking's link
http://www.climatedepot.com/
Is immensely commercial, its aim is make money not Science balanced, misses accepted definition of climate ie >30yrs & site search completely misses PHYSICS ie Thermal IR of CO2, ie NOT credible !

freethinking explain the RSS data set here shows completely different, oh & set it to include CO2
http://www.woodfo...ormalise

Can u explain immense disparity ?

Can u be smarter freethinking, how did u choose your nick, did u 'nick'; good sense, appropriateness, maturity:- Notice "nick" is to steal - can u steal intelligence too:-
http://www.oxford...Code=all

Just on Australian ABC breakfast news, 2014 Hottest ever !
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (11) Dec 03, 2014
In publishing this article the editors of phys.org have demonstrated their inability to distinguish pseudoscience from science..


Because you say so? Speaking of an inability to distinguish reality from fantasy, welcome to a real science board Terry. You still busy ignoring any science that doesn't agree with your world vewi? Yea, rhetorical question, of course you are.

Just more proof that Terry has sunk below notice. He now has to post at a site like this.
Mike_Massen
3.6 / 5 (14) Dec 03, 2014
Benni claimed
MM's problem is his fundamentally weak background in the foundations of science & math. His concept of reasoning in terms of science & math goes something like:.
Show me the precise issue where u claim I am Weak - can u ?

U R an immense redneck fail at Science, satire, IQ or even basic adult technical comms :-(

U are amazingly imprecise, U mean Mike_Massen or ModernMystic - both can be 'MM' ?

Which Science links from me u purport to claim I don't know fundamentals ?

Have u Benni, looked at IR spectra re CO2; vibrational states, absorption spectra, collisions ?

Do u arbitrarily dismiss any physics u cannot understand, maybe U have self-esteem issues ?

Do u realise that since u joined on 11 Nov 2011, u could have by now a uni education, such as even basic qualifications in Physics say uni 1st/2nd semester at the LEAST !

I Studied at uni level in multiple cross disciplines since 1976, most recent post grad 2014, get real Benni ( shakes head) !
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (11) Dec 03, 2014
The headline "CO2 warming effects felt just a decade after being emitted" is an application of the fallacy that is known as "misplaced concreteness" aka "reification." In misplaced concreteness abstract are conflated with concrete objects. In this case an abstract Earth is conflated with the concrete Earth.


Wow, that's pretty sciency sounding gobblygook. Funny how you use the marxist dictum of reification to pretend argument against the science you deny. What we have here folks, is displaced hostility - and reflexion.

You have conflated denialism with skepticism.
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (15) Dec 03, 2014
freethinking claimed
Deep ocean temperatures have not risen since 2005
http://science.na...t_abyss/
Gosh, try reading the link you post - ie BEFORE you post it. I quote from YOUR link:-
"Study coauthor Josh Willis of JPL said these findings do not throw suspicion on climate change itself.
The sea level is still rising," Willis noted. "We're just trying to understand the nitty-gritty details."
Runrig &/+ thermodynamics have posted some further detail on this, there are issues re currents, density etc Upper oceans HAVE warmed. See physics re ocean heat increases:-
http://upload.wik...2%29.png

So why do u pick narrow region, where is your integrity, affected by your arbitrary religious belief in some deity that cant communicate except through vague drug induced dreams ?

Like a religion freethinking U are essential reliant upon arbitrary claim - ie. no substance :-(
imido
Dec 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (11) Dec 03, 2014
Mike Massen:

An argument that employs a characterization of one's opponent as a premise, for example he or she is an "AGW denier," is an example of an ad hominem argument and is illogical.


Wow, talk about false projection! You start your very first post in this string with ad hominem attacks against the editors of this board. You are right though - it IS illogical - just like ignoring the scientific findings of thousands of independent researchers and scientist because you don't like what their findings say is illogical.

Or, in your case, probably flat out dishonest. And I say "probably" only because there is a small chance you actually don't understand the science.

Mike_Massen
3.5 / 5 (14) Dec 03, 2014
dev_dangol PROVES knows nothing of diffusion & dynamics in atmosphere with this blurt
Fake science. GHG / GHE due to gases is ridiculous. Troposphere is not layered, it is a homogenous mixture of gases; if it were layered CO2, the heaviest gas would be at the bottom not on top.
Please get an education. CO2 has been accepted for >100 years as well mixed, look at the IR spectra re thermal issues - do U know what that even means ?

dev_dangol claimed
If it were GHE it would be always warm since the sun always shines on the half of the earth. Freely moving molecules so gases move up when heated to transmit heat by convection method.
Measurement evidence ?

dev_dangol claimed
Troposphere is exposed to space not closed. There are many established physical laws that do not support GHG ideas / GHE due to gases
Yet EVIDENCE shows you are false, which do you think is more correct:-

Your physics interpretation OR empirical evidence ?

Hmmm, really tough question ;-)
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 03, 2014
It takes just 10 years for a single emission of carbon dioxide (CO2) to have its maximum warming effects on the Earth
the concentrations of CO2 exhibit ugly http://i.imgur.com/xcnF425.gif, which the causality of AGW model cannot explain.


zephyr, how about you stop using your sock puppets to speak about that which goes against your ridiculous notion that dark matter is heating the atmosphere. In fact, how about you stop making sock puppets - you have been banned for a reason, and it gets tiresome to have to ban your myriad of sock puppets over and over.
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (12) Dec 03, 2014
imido claimed AGAIN
Unfortunately, the concentrations of CO2 exhibit ugly http://i.imgur.com/xcnF425.gif, which the causality of the above model cannot explain. This is just the difference between computer model and reality.
Didnt I ask U before, what is the provenance of this link's graphic ?

How then do U explain this imido - can you possibly even try to articulate ?

http://www.woodfo...ormalise

Do u need help in:-
1. Understanding the source of arbitrary links ?
2. Knowing how to assess them ?
3. Knowing the fundamentals re the science of Greenhouse gases ?

ie. Some basic Science Wisdom - puh-lease !

Have you been on this forum at phys.org long enough to have got a uni physics education ?

please imido can u be a little bit smarter please ?
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (12) Dec 03, 2014
dev_dangol PROVES immense ignorance
Sea surface temperature (average 15C) is not hot enough to lift water vapour to form cloud needed for the rain cycle.
So you aren't aware (colder) ice evaporates via sublimation so Y shouldn't water evaporate when its at least 15 C warmer, where did u get a physics education or did u ?

dev_dangol muttered
If that is possible we will have rains all the time, (even during winter we have that temperature in Nepal on the average)
It does, a great deal on the oceans, did u not notice oceans are ~70% of earth's surface AND winds move clouds around significantly before they might seed enough to rain.

dev_dangol claimed
..drier and drier by urbanization - covering land by concretes, black top roads, deforestation, and expanding deserts. So evaporation from the land areas is decreasing, as a result cooling of the land areas is decreasing significantly.
Why R u ignorant of urban heat islands - higher humidity from cities ?
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Dec 03, 2014
If you have them, its not too late for you to provide us with one or more syllogisms regarding the CO2. What are they?


CO2 is nearly transparent to the solar radiation emitted from the sun, but partially opaque to the thermal radiation emitted by the earth. As such, it allows incoming solar radiation from the sun to pass through it and warm the earth's surface. The earth's surface, in turn, emits a portion of this energy upwards toward space as longer wavelength or thermal radiation. Some of this thermal radiation is absorbed and re-radiated by the atmosphere's CO2 molecules back toward earth's surface, providing an additional source of heat energy.

SInce the late 1800's mankind has emitted vast amounts of heat-trapping CO2 into the atmosphere.

As a result of the vast amounts of heat trapping CO2 in the atmosphere, the Earth is warming.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (13) Dec 03, 2014
I Studied at uni level in multiple cross disciplines since 1976, most recent post grad 2014, get real Benni


MM, get out of the fantasy world of wherever it is you're trying to go with life. I have 6 years of engineering school education in Nuclear/Electrical Engineering. I can do all the math in Einstein's GR & Energy/Mass Equivalence. I spend a significant amount of my time in a "gamma spectroscopy" lab working with scintillation detectors for testing the integrity of high voltage equipment.

It is plain to me that if at the time of the 1998 Hockey Stock when ppm of CO2 was about 340 & now in 2014 it is 400, I want to know how so-called climate experts extrapolate a 10 year scatterplot hiatus to come up with linear regression that makes sense when it is plugged into an equation or, by inserting limits into an Integral so I can get consistent hard numbers. How 'bout you, y'up to it? Give your iconic heroes some help with the math, they sorely need it.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (13) Dec 03, 2014
.........you see Mike, if you claim a direct 1:1 link of the ratio of CO2 to Temperature in the manner being taught at the grade school level where you are, then there is no 10 year hiatus, it is immediate. But their models aren't working out that way are they? So now they need a fudge factor, that being a 10 year fudge factor.
gkam
2.8 / 5 (11) Dec 03, 2014
" I have 6 years of engineering school education in Nuclear/Electrical Engineering."
------------------------------------------------

They need you at Fukushima, where all three Units of the Dai-ichi group melted completely down, turning the fuel and reactor vessel into out-of-control Corium. They got Neutron flux several times after meltdown, signalling secondary self-criticalities.

Why the significant differences between the "hydrogen explosions" of the two reactors? Unit three has MOX, spiked with Plutonium, and several experts posit a nuclear criticality.

How did Cobalt 60 wind up in the steel of Fukushima Dai-ini Unit One, kilometers away?

After you do those, I will have more for you.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (9) Dec 03, 2014
Why are we using 3,000,000-degree Neutrons to boil water??

No other power technology threatens life on Earth, or creates wastes we cannot handle. Why do we even try to use it?
gkam
2.3 / 5 (9) Dec 03, 2014
"EPA set standards for the concentration of 90Sr in community water supplies. The average annual concentration of 90Sr in water supplies should not exceed 8 pCi/L (0.3 Bq/L)."
(http://www.atsdr....tid=120)

That's 300 Bq/m3. TEPCO admits 990,000,000 Bq/m3 from Reactor 2 seaside.

That's in the groundwater!

But nobody is drinking it, . . . . yet.

Guy_Underbridge
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 03, 2014
CO2 causes warming... What next? The earth is shaped like a ball??
Mike_Massen
3.6 / 5 (14) Dec 03, 2014
Benni claimed
MM, get out of the fantasy world of wherever it is you're trying to go with life. I have 6 years of engineering school education in Nuclear/Electrical Engineering
BUT, U don't seem to understand underlying physics of greenhouse gases eg CO2 - ffs forget sr/gr not relevant here.

Wake up, climate is a 30+yr trend, even at shorter intervals the evidence is clear ffs grow up !

http://www.woodfo...ormalise

Why don;t U add a series for an arbitrary 10yr if you NEED to force some opinion - yeah ?

Benni claimed
.. if you claim a direct 1:1 link of the ratio of CO2 to Temperature in the manner being taught at the grade school level..
Are u ill or deluded. I NEVER claimed any one to one.

You HAVE to factor in comparative specific heats, note oceans 4000x that of atmosphere - doh CANNOT ever be 1:1 - why r u being unscientifically dis-ingenuous & showing yourself up a dill ?
Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Dec 03, 2014
Wake up, climate is a 30+yr trend, even at shorter intervals the evidence is clear ffs grow up


So, anything less than 30 is what? Weather? I'll bet you were around about 15k years ago for the disappearance of the mammoths in Siberia weren't you? Was that "weather" or "climate change" in your humble opinion?
Mike_Massen
3.6 / 5 (14) Dec 03, 2014
Benni showing himself up asked ;-)
So, anything less than 30 is what? Weather? I'll bet you were around about 15k years ago for the disappearance of the mammoths in Siberia weren't you? Was that "weather" or "climate change" in your humble opinion?
Um, R U OK ?
15K years ago had AFAIK very different equilibrium conditions - don't u think ?

Havent u noitced 30yrs is acceptable re climate not re weather, others anecdotal :-(

Have u been misled by old unscientific propaganda perhaps ?

Anything that goes back that far MUST have issues re NO human accelerated GHG emissions,
such as the ~230,000 Liters/sec petrol being burned NOW - did any period have that as we have now ?

Have you seen this - care in the most genuine sense of "Care" - ie seen it, understand it ?
http://www.abc.ne...4144.htm

Comments please, enlightened observations from those that know 'some' physics puh-lease !
runrig
4.4 / 5 (12) Dec 03, 2014
.if you claim a direct 1:1 link of the ratio of CO2 to Temperature in the manner being taught at the grade school level where you are, then there is no 10 year hiatus, it is immediate. But their models aren't working out that way are they? So now they need a fudge factor, that being a 10 year fudge factor.

Are you dense?
No one is!

What is it you do not understand about.......
Solar insolation being taken up by oceans at a (temp eqiv ratio of 4000:1) in 93% of the climate system.
That the Oceans heat the atmosphere and NOT vice versa.
That oceans are more than capable indeed MUST bury some of that heat from view to deeper levels.
GCM's are NOT the science they are tools to evaluate the science as it stands and to improve it.
Unknown cycles CANNOT be modeled - primarily ocean current ones.
AND the previous post was relevant to you assuming ave global (air) temps must rise in parallel with CO2 ppm.
Quite obviously they do not and indeed CANNOT because of the above.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Dec 03, 2014
Wake up, climate is a 30+yr trend, even at shorter intervals the evidence is clear ffs grow up


So, anything less than 30 is what? Weather? I'll bet you were around about 15k years ago for the disappearance of the mammoths in Siberia weren't you? Was that "weather" or "climate change" in your humble opinion?

Look, it's quite simple.
30 years is accepted as the period needed for natural climate cycles to, well, complete at least one cycle. Therefore the signal (trend) of the direction global temperature is taking will become apparent out of the "noise" of weather.
That's it. Nothing sinister, just a sensible period to eliminate contamination of the overall trend.
freethinking
1 / 5 (8) Dec 03, 2014
Whats the difference between AGW believers and Thugs who shout Hands Up Don't Shoot at cops while they are rioting, looting, destroying their city?

Since they both lie, cheat, steal, the only real difference is that one moves faster at burning down civilization around them.

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Dec 04, 2014
@Terry Oldberg
The headline...is an application of the
the title is based upon info from the linked study
if you have equivalent studies from reputable peer reviewed sources refuting it, you should like it here, not attack an article "title", which is known as a "Strawman" logical fallacy
argument that employs a characterization of one's opponent as a premise
the "denier" label is not the premise of the argument, but a simple use of nomenclature to advise those who accept science that you are ignoring studies for irrational reasons
it was used as a notification of address, not as a premise
arguing about the use of ad hominem and establishing it as the premise out of context as well as wrongly is a red herring and Strawman logical fallacy
There is no hypocrisy in calling out a fellow debater for introducing a fallacy
so glad you agree

Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Dec 04, 2014
@Terry Oldberg
If you can make an argument regarding the CO2 that is of the form of a syllogism, This argument will then merit the respect of all of the participants in this thread
CO2 is a GHG that forces warming
http://www.scienc...abstract
http://iopscience...4002.pdf
rather than simply argue back and forth, why not provide the studies from reputable peer reviewed sources (not viXra, blogs, articles, etc) that refute the linked studies above, as it will be necessary to lend credence to an argument against the conclusions in the study anyway

just FYI - you are new, and it is common to forget that when posting
Mike, Maggnus, Runrig, Thermodynamics and many others have been arguing with deniers here for a long time, and when they see something wrong, they simply go for the jugular

any long term poster knows that frustration will always show it's hand eventually
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Dec 04, 2014
@benni
I have 6 years of engineering school education in Nuclear/Electrical Engineering
and you have never once been able to prove this fact here on the site
AND you have made high school grade errors in the past, as well as supported pseudoscience just recently (with regard to physics and astrophysics: http://phys.org/n...big.html ,and http://phys.org/n...nds.html )P.S. Ham radio's get a signal everywhere and can also be used to transmit data to the internet in places like the amazon- where cell signals are not found, so denigrate it all you like, you should recognize the uses (still) as an engineer, but i guess that either:
you are NOT an engineer
OR
you are forgetting whatever you might have learned because living in a soft rich country made you lazy and stupid (intentionally used- since you ignore evidence when it doesn't suit your beliefs)
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 04, 2014
@benniTROLL
So, anything less than 30 is what? Weather?
NOAA & EPA defines a trend as
The classical period is 3 decades, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
see Climate http://epa.gov/cl...y.html#C
http://www.nws.no...ry.php#c
http://www.grida..../518.htm
deniers typically cherry pick data and exclude relevant data to manipulate the results (see ubavontuba) and then obfuscate with irrelevant links or arguments (like yours- the difference between weather and climate: http://www.nasa.g...FwcmrzIU )
are you clear now?
Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 04, 2014
@Terry Oldberg
If you can make an argument regarding the CO2 that is of the form of a syllogism, This argument will then merit the respect of all of the participants in this thread
CO2 is a GHG that forces warming


just FYI - you are new, and it is common to forget that when posting
Mike, Maggnus, Runrig, Thermodynamics and many others have been arguing with deniers here for a long time, and when they see something wrong, they simply go for the jugular


.....and just FYI, like you, they have never seen a Differential Equation in Einstein's GR that they could follow, or a Rate of Reaction Equation whereby they can make start to comprehend the real chemistry behind billions of years of Climate Change.

You only being a retired fire truck captain living in Texas, can only qualify for a post almost every housewife in the country can qualify for, King of Copy & Paste, yet you expect us to believe you're some kind of Computer/Science aficionado.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 04, 2014
a retired fire truck captain living in Texas
1- and soldier
2-i don't live in texas, stupid
can only qualify for a post almost every housewife in the country can qualify for
personal conjecture not supported by evidence
at least i can/have prove(en) what i say, whereas you've never been able to prove you are an engineer AND you make basic mistakes to boot (you also support pseudoscience, esp. with regard to physics and astrophysics: http://phys.org/n...big.html ,and http://phys.org/n...nds.html )
you expect us to believe
i expect nothing
especially from a TROLL like you
who continually bashes and posts BS (like your pseudoscience) as well as makes rookie mistakes

tell you what, B... post your PE
or contact me at my easily found profile on the links i've already provided time and again and send it

Or you can fire up the old cell phone...oh, never mind
NO SIGNAL where i live
LOL
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 04, 2014
@benniTROLL
never seen a Differential Equation blah blah blah blah Climate Change
i also noticed that you:
1- do not provide ANY refuting evidence for my links
2- you don't have any proof at all regarding AGW
3- you've not been able to even show (using ANY equations, let alone differential ones- LMFAO) that the studies are wrong
4- you are not publishing in climate science either
5- you've NEVER proven you are a PE

you are likely someone who worked in an engineering dept. so you like to throw around the title and make grandiose claims

i've also worked in an Engineering Dept. (with an Aircraft Parts Manufacturer) selling to everyone from Airbus & Boeing to Piper and the Military

I researched specifications, requirements, as well as matched blueprints/mylars to parts and contracts while insuring feasibility and production times... but i am NO engineer

like you aren't

at least i put LINKS/REFERENCES
http://sci-ence.org/red-flags2
Benni
2 / 5 (12) Dec 04, 2014
.........well there El Stumpo, now we can more easily understand what makes you such a Copy & Paste expert. A lot of housewives can also include every word you put up in the above post. By the way, have you ever seen so little as even a Trigonometric Function you could solve?

And by the way, why would I want to send my resume to a retired fire fighter?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (8) Dec 04, 2014
well there El Stumpo...blah blah blah blah

@banniTROLL
1- straight outright TROLL comment
2- i noticed that you STILL are not posting supporting links or evidence
3- where is your refuting evidence for the studies above?

shall i link some more for you to refute?
ok!
since i know you love it and it also proves that you are a troll because you never can refute the evidence... please provide the equivalent peer reviewed studies from reputable sources that refute the following:
http://www.scienc...5682/362
http://www.nature...65a.html
http://rspb.royal...20141856
http://www.scienc...abstract
http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf
here are some good articles that you cannot even refute: http://www.epa.go...dity.pdf
http://www.azimut...fication
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (9) Dec 04, 2014
And by the way, why would I want to send my resume to a retired fire fighter?
@benniTROLL
1- so you can prove who you are
2- because i've also received other people's credentials and can validate who they are

but seriously, i don't really care what you do, since you are simply trolling and baiting... so, i hope you don't mind: i am not going to play your post games any more

either post relevant info
refute the evidence
or at least provide some indication that you know WTF you are talking about, because you sure haven't done that yet, especially WRT climate science
http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/

also... if you are simply going to troll
i am simply going to downvote and report you
just like RC when he trolls
okee dokee?

good boy

now... can you post equivalent evidence refuting my evidence or are you going to play stupid and troll?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.