Research confirms how global warming links to carbon emissions

December 1, 2014
Credit: Alfred Palmer/Wikipedia

Research by the University of Liverpool has identified, for the first time, how global warming is related to the amount of carbon emitted.

A team of researchers from the Universities of Liverpool, Southampton and Bristol have derived the first theoretical equation to demonstrate that global warming is a direct result of the build-up of carbon emissions since the late 1800s when man-made carbon emissions began.

The results are in accord with previous data from climate models.

The theoretical equation revealed the complex relationship between carbon dioxide levels and the ocean system.

Burning fossil fuels increased levels leading to global warming and the greenhouse effect, which is partly offset by the oceans taking in both heat and carbon.

The results show every million-million tonnes of carbon emitted will generate one degree Celsius of global warming.

They also show that the build-up of carbon emitted over the last 200 years will then last for many centuries to millennia even if carbon emissions are subsequently phased out.

The results also reveal that surface warming is related to the total amount of carbon emitted from , with little change over time as ocean carbon and changes in heat uptake almost cancel each other out.

Professor Ric Williams, Chair in Ocean Sciences at the University of Liverpool's School of Environmental Sciences, said: "Given the complexity of the climate system, it was a surprise to find out how simple the relationship is between global warming and how much carbon we emit.

"The ocean turns out to be crucial by taking up both heat and carbon, which lead to nearly compensating effects in how surface warming depends on carbon emissions."

"These findings potentially address the most important finding from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report last year, which is how the global warming increases with how much carbon we emit.

"In terms of wider policy implications, our theory reiterates a simple message: the more cumulative carbon emissions are allowed to increase, the more global surface warming will also increase."

"This policy implication reinforces the need to develop carbon capture techniques to limit the warming for the next generations."

Dr Phil Goodwin, from Ocean and Earth Science, University of Southampton, added: "Our analysis highlights the nearly irreversible nature of carbon emissions for . Once carbon has been emitted into the atmosphere the warming effect will last many centuries, even after much of the has been absorbed by the ocean."

"We cannot wait until after significant anthropogenic warming has occurred to reduce and hope the climate goes back to normal by itself, it won't."

The research is published in Nature Geoscience.

Explore further: A new measure of global warming from carbon emissions

More information: Sensitivity of climate to cumulative carbon emissions due to compensation of ocean heat and carbon uptake, Nature Geoscience, DOI: 10.1038/ngeo2304

Related Stories

A new measure of global warming from carbon emissions

June 10, 2009

Damon Matthews, a professor in Concordia University's Department of Geography, Planning and the Environment has found a direct relationship between carbon dioxide emissions and global warming. Matthews, together with colleagues ...

Recommended for you

Japan scientists detect rare, deep-Earth tremor

August 26, 2016

Scientists who study earthquakes in Japan said Thursday they have detected a rare deep-Earth tremor for the first time and traced its location to a distant and powerful storm.

92 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

TruGhost_OfBo
2 / 5 (25) Dec 01, 2014
A theoretical equation from a LOONer module. So somebody had a hot flash and they thought it was GloBULL....More Shyster, pseudo science from the Academic Alarmist Alchemists, Almsbegging for more grant money.
♫When you want GloBULL in the neighborhood
Who ya gonna Call????? The University of Liverpool, Ric Williams, and his GloBULLsters♫
wasp171
2.1 / 5 (22) Dec 01, 2014
OMG and they forgot to associate CO2 levels to ISIS violence, child abuse and FIFA corruption!
gkam
2.7 / 5 (37) Dec 01, 2014
Your silly posts are irrelevant. Look up Updated Capital Costs from the EIA, and weep.

Your Dirty Fuel systems now cost more than the clean ones.
TourLooper
2.5 / 5 (24) Dec 01, 2014
They've been saying this for 20 years and yet the temperatures have remained flat.
imido
Dec 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gkam
2.5 / 5 (38) Dec 01, 2014
"They've been saying this for 20 years and yet the temperatures have remained flat."
------------------------------------------

Nope.

http://www.climat...globally
Canute
2 / 5 (14) Dec 01, 2014
Amazing how the propaganda war heats up prior to Lima.
Wake
1.9 / 5 (16) Dec 01, 2014
I wonder what they think about the latest large number of volcanic eruptions and this entire summer while the pacific coast forests were on fire some for months.

Are we going to get another "Whoopsie" when they figure out some other thing to blame onto man when they actually know it's all connected to the output of the Sun.
Wake
1.8 / 5 (15) Dec 01, 2014
gkam - Do they have a hook through your nose in order to lead you about like that?

http://www.worldc...warming/

http://wattsupwit...ate1.jpg
jwbrighton
1.9 / 5 (17) Dec 01, 2014
More non fact opinion based upon theory!
Water_Prophet
1.6 / 5 (12) Dec 01, 2014
Here's a non-theoretical and obvious correlation, between inflation adjusted GDP and temperature:
http://www.truthf...2Bplugin
Scroll down to inflation adjusted GDP.
and temperature:
http://woodfortre....9/trend
Play with the date ranges.

Notice that it DOES NOT increase, as it would with CO2 increases, but goes up and down with GDP, and presumably, energy required by employees.

Look at how strong the correlation is. Especially the elbow in the 1970's. AGW-ers can DENY all they want, and deniers can keep denying, but it is right there.

Anthropomorphic change. No CO2 required.
mbee1
3 / 5 (14) Dec 01, 2014
this equation does not prove anything, all the guys did was write a simple linear equation which predicts results to confirm with the model. Anybody can do that for anything. The proof that CO2 is warming the world would have to prove how the medieval warming period occurred when it was hotter than today as well as a warming period hotter than today in 120000 BC. these guys cannot predict the weather out a month so this equation is GIGO.
Water_Prophet
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 01, 2014
Where does the heat go? you ask.
Thermodynamics says heat goes from high energy states to lower ones. Since heat is well mixed to "waste" heat at ambient, where we live, the only place it can express itself is (WAS) the poles. Hence, the ice caps melting.

Now the story is a little different since the N. Hemisphere's pole has receded. Think, 70% of the land and 90% of the fossil fuels, are in the North. Which means, since weather goes from equator to pole, most of the change should occur in the North.
And son of a gun, that is what we see.

Really, are there any questions?
mbee1
1 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2014
Water, you might not the the best data set ends in 2010 at that site.
mbee1
2.9 / 5 (12) Dec 01, 2014
The arctic ice is increasing for the last two years, the antarctic ice has been increasing for years. The problem is nobody actually knows what is normal. We had a little ice age when the ice was larger and a medieval warm period when the ice was less. We seem to be in a state of slight warming which if you are a farmer or somebody who wants to eat is better than freezing.
psychosalmon
2.8 / 5 (11) Dec 01, 2014
Zhao and Feng recently published a paper in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics that finds the opposite, no correlation to CO2 and warming cooling cycles driven by the sun.
Water_Prophet
1.2 / 5 (10) Dec 01, 2014
@mbee,
2010 is good enough...

I have my own theory about Antarctic ice, but in lieu of a good one proposed by modern climate scientists, I hope I have your patience:

The N. Hemisphere is absorbing more energy due to an increase in the rate of N. Pole ice melting, and thus allowing the S. Pole to grow.

I am not saying it is any more than a concept, so I invite your criticism, or better yet observations for or against.
ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 01, 2014
A team of researchers from the Universities of Liverpool, Southampton and Bristol have derived the first theoretical equation to demonstrate that global warming is a direct result of the build-up of carbon emissions


So how then, do they explain the last 18 years?

http://woodfortre....8/trend
votsbh
1.9 / 5 (14) Dec 01, 2014
These kinds of reports just prior to Lima conference are unlikely to be accidental.
The fabricated urgency of so called "Climate Catastrophe" boils down to the urgent need to extract massive amounts of money before the hoax is totally discredited.
Give it some thought. What if the hijacked green movement is not about
"Saving the Planet", but instead - enslaving humanity ?
Here is what sets of some of the red lights on the subject :
It became anti-human, anti-freedom, anti-science (falsifying test results is not science),
anti considering possible variety of causes - locked in myopically on one - CO2.
Exploits fears of biblical images.
Thrives on false guilt complexes patiently propagated by "green" educators over decades.
Frederic Seitz, a former head of US National Academy of Science said: "I have never
witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the Peer Review Process than during the events
leading up to the IPCC reports.
zz5555
4.3 / 5 (12) Dec 01, 2014
"Zhao and Feng recently published a paper in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics that finds the opposite, no correlation to CO2 and warming cooling cycles driven by the sun."

Previews of their paper at WUWT indicated that they assumed some things about the sun that don't match reality and ignored most of the known physics. Their model was basically just a curve fit. Curve fits are a preferred method for people trying to deny known science because you can prove absolutely anything with a curve fit - no physics needed.

Von Neumann: "With four parameters I can fit an elephant, with five I can make him wiggle his trunk."
Agomemnon
1.8 / 5 (10) Dec 01, 2014
A team of researchers from the Universities of Liverpool, Southampton and Bristol have derived the first theoretical equation to demonstrate that global warming is a direct result of the build-up of carbon emissions


So how then, do they explain the last 18 years?

http://woodfortre....8/trend

Do you expect them to believe their lying eyes?
gkam
1.9 / 5 (26) Dec 01, 2014
"Give it some thought. What if the hijacked green movement is not about
"Saving the Planet", but instead - enslaving humanity ?"
------------------------------------------

Oh, no, . . he's onto us!!

I hope he doesn't find out we're under his bed!
gkam
2 / 5 (25) Dec 01, 2014
"The N. Hemisphere is absorbing more energy due to an increase in the rate of N. Pole ice melting, and thus allowing the S. Pole to grow.

I am not saying it is any more than a concept, so I invite your criticism, or better yet observations for or against."
---------------------------------------

Interesting. I considered it was because the glaciers were calving, being lubricated from underneath, as the ice accelerates its way into the sea.

But studies and models indicate it is because heat causes more evaporation and hence more snowfall, I believe.
Mike_Massen
2.6 / 5 (18) Dec 02, 2014
Also for wasp171, TruGhost_OfBo

TourLooper claimed
They've been saying this for 20 years and yet the temperatures have remained flat.
No. You are mistaken, R U an accident or Intentional ?
Top blue line last 20 years.

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

AND
http://www.cru.ue...erature/

You have been on this site since July 21, 2014 why are you not up to date or are you paid to obfuscate like some other idiots ?

imido claimed
...concentrations of CO2 exhibit ugly lag against temperature curve
Provenance of your link please, it looks like one I saw months ago but the years were changed, strange there is no detail of publisher, data set used etc why is that ?

You can check CO2 here, try the graph macros yourself, unlike your blind source these have Provenance:-

http://www.woodfo...o2/every
adam_s_0625
2 / 5 (8) Dec 02, 2014
Funny, research also just showed how the Sun is a major force in controlling climate.
adam_s_0625
2.2 / 5 (13) Dec 02, 2014
@Mike_Massen - "No. You are mistaken, R U an accident or Intentional ?
Top blue line last 20 years."

Leave it to an alarmist to obfuscate the pause of the last 10+ years by decreasing the slope of the trend and saying, "See, temp is still rising." And alarmists wonder why the public doesn't believe them anymore.

Instead of using gross trends and changing the slope of the trend in hide inconvenient data, try plotting a 10 rolling average and overlaying the CO2 data. The lack of correlation becomes readily apparent. Oh, but then you would have to admit that CO2 isn't a major forcing agent of atmospheric temp (as the CAGW hypothesis states) ... and the alarmist community simply cannot tolerate that.
adam_s_0625
1.9 / 5 (8) Dec 02, 2014
@Water_Prophet - Respectfully, I think you're over-analyzing the situation. The melting of the Arctic has stopped (at least for a while). The NSIDC data shows that the trend is flat but that the seasonal variation has increased tremendously compared to earlier seasonal variation. No one, to my knowledge, has been able to explain this.

With respect to the Antarctic, it is well known that salt water requires a colder temp to freeze compared to fresh water. I have not seen the data, but I doubt the surface temp of the Antarctic Ocean has changed all that much over the past 5-10 years. If true, there is only one possible explanation for the increase in sea ice, and that is that a large amount of fresh water (from the continent) is dumping into the ocean. But why? The air temp at the Antarctic has not gotten significantly warmer (if at all). There is some data that volcanic activity has increased around the continent. Again, if true, this would explain the entire situation.
Mike_Massen
2.4 / 5 (17) Dec 02, 2014
added
I wonder what they think about the latest large number of volcanic eruptions and this entire summer while the pacific coast forests were on fire some for months.
Re CO2, U can see the Pinatubo bump but, that's all:-
http://www.woodfo...o2/every

Wake
...another "Whoopsie" .. they actually know it's all connected to the output of the Sun.
Who are this "they" - their identity, some clueless journalists perhaps, here is graph of insolation, how is the sun responsible then ?
http://www.skepti...asic.gif

@Wake,
Home page of your link makes arbitrary claims:-
http://www.worldc...bout-us/
But, guess what there is no search result for "Carbon Dioxide", so clearly the page is incomplete in the Science despite its claims, ie Not credible.

Your 2nd link has NO provenance, what data set please & how are temps reconstructed ?
Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (18) Dec 02, 2014
adam_s_0625 claimed
Funny, research also just showed how the Sun is a major force in controlling climate.
Did U not see the link supplied:-
http://www.skepti...asic.gif

Where is your "research" please ?

adam_s_0625 claimed
...by decreasing the slope of the trend and saying, "See, temp is still rising."
Beg pardon, I didnt decrease any slope, the details of the link SHOW the data set & the plot parameters.

adam_s_0625 claimed
...try plotting a 10 rolling average and overlaying the CO2 data
Which implies you have already done that, why not post the full link so its clear, you appear to be new here since October, so some advice, rather than making claims & telling people what to do, why not be COMPLETE in your attempted refutation by actually posting full link as you suggest for 10 years rolling mean if you like ?

But adam_s_0625, bear in mind climate is at least 30yr period. Why on earth would you want to narrow to 10 ?
runrig
4.2 / 5 (13) Dec 02, 2014
Funny, research also just showed how the Sun is a major force in controlling climate.

Correct.....
But NOT in adding sig varying insolation (as in W/m^2), which is what is needed to cause GW.
Variable UV levels stir up stratospheric winds, which filter down to the troposphere,
IOW Air-masses go different places - But heat is NOT added to the Globe (other than the known 0.1% variation in TSI).
Err, you will need to pay attention my friend. Or at least learn some science, but then again you're in good company on this thread.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (13) Dec 02, 2014
But adam_s_0625, bear in mind climate is at least 30yr period. Why on earth would you want to narrow to 10 ?

Mike: I couldn't possibly guess, could you? (rhetorical).
I don't for a second think this poster has considered the ~93% of the climate that gets the heat first (mostly) before passing it on to the atmosphere.
No, no, that's measured in hundreds of a degree and doesn't scan with deniers as they have no concept of heat capacity vs temperature.
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (10) Dec 02, 2014
http://www.worldc...warming/
http://wattsupwit...ate1.jpg
@wake
extremist politically motivated sites are not scientific evidence
what you should be looking for is empirical evidence and scientific studies which are based upon the scientific method

If you have such world changing evidence refuting AGW, then start by refuting the following with equivalent studies which are, like linked, published in reputable peer reviewed publications
http://www.scienc...abstract
http://www.scienc...5682/362
http://www.nature...65a.html
http://rspb.royal...20141856
http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf

these are a small start: http://iopscience.../article

you can save your political links for articles on PO regarding politics
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (10) Dec 02, 2014
Anthropomorphic change. No CO2 required
@ALCHE/crybaby
if you had empirical evidence or any reputable science supporting your personal conjecture, you would have published your delusion, erm... conclusions, i mean, in a peer reviewed magazine and you likely would have been quite famous

http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/

https://en.wikipe...r_effect
Anonym
1.9 / 5 (13) Dec 02, 2014
What a fine piece of AGW propaganda! A model of its kind. "Carbon" (dirty, unhealthful) shorthanded for carbon dioxide (odorless, colorless, healthful). AND an accompanying photo, generic art, of some unidentified stacks belching nasty looking black smoke. At least the writer avoided the use of "denier" .... is this progress?

S-h-h-h-h ... P-S-Y O-P. in progress....
zz5555
4.2 / 5 (13) Dec 02, 2014
Funny, research also just showed how the Sun is a major force in controlling climate.

Correction: A great deal of research has shown that, while the sun is usually the primary driver of climate change, the sun isn't currently the primary driver of climate change. I'm not aware of any research that has shown otherwise, at least not without ignoring physics.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (13) Dec 02, 2014
.....carbon dioxide (odorless, colorless, healthful).


Poisonous in large quantities and the prime GHG in planetary atmospheres (apart from CH4).
Go take a trip to Venus and find out for yourself, a common sense and scientific thinking don't seem to me apparent.
FFS
(PS: Venus is NOT hot because it's closer the Sun - go check what albedo is if you think that).
TruGhost_OfBo
1.8 / 5 (10) Dec 02, 2014
At one time it was theoretically confirmed that by throwing 3 virgins into a volcano, The resulting effects would be the curing of Drought and Pestilence. All the "models" showed that....... they really, really, did........
thermodynamics
3.8 / 5 (10) Dec 02, 2014
Tru Ghost said
At one time it was theoretically confirmed that by throwing 3 virgins into a volcano, The resulting effects would be the curing of Drought and Pestilence. All the "models" showed that....... they really, really, did........


What a moron. Are you thinking you can get away with equating superstition with science on a science site? You are pathetic. Try coming up with some science.
Modernmystic
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 02, 2014
At one time it was theoretically confirmed that by throwing 3 virgins into a volcano, The resulting effects would be the curing of Drought and Pestilence. All the "models" showed that....... they really, really, did........


This is not about computer models. Computer models attempt to give more precise predictions. Only the ignorant, or those with a political axe to grind against policy (which I have too, I'm not disputing that) dispute that having more of a gas in the atmosphere which is absolutely proven to trap heat won't make things hotter. At it's basic level this isn't even about the methods of science per se, it's simply the recognition that the Earth is round and the sky is blue. Move on.

Even WITH my big axe to grind against doomed policy however, is not enough to convince me that we should simply ignore the problem. Naive energy policy is one thing. A world war on a scale never before seen because billions have been displaced is another....
Modernmystic
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 02, 2014
If it's about politics for you (and it most likely is in one way or another), then I'd ask you to start having THAT conversation instead of denying the color of the sky and the shape of the Earth, OR thinking that "somehow" wind and solar power will save the day. I respectfully submit it will have more of an effect that continuing to do the same thing over and over and expecting people to act differently.

Also, if you do start to have that conversation, be prepared and open to the possibility that you might be wrong....IOW listen, and discuss...don't just continue to shout.
Sonhouse
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 02, 2014
And what do you do, all you deniers, if they are right?
Modernmystic
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 02, 2014
And what do you do, all you deniers, if they are right?


You already know the answer...they suffer like the rest of us.

What will all those who pursue naive energy policy do if their efforts and support delay productive action past the point of no return?
tadchem
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 02, 2014
A mathematical model has been developed that concurs with computer models. Meanwhile there has been a 10% increase in CO2 (NOAA empirical data) since the global average temperature *peaked* in 1998 (UAH and RSS data).
richard_f_cronin
1.4 / 5 (8) Dec 02, 2014
J. Marvin Herndon's naturally occurring fission GeoReactor cooks up CO2 far, far in excess than the piddling contributions of human activity. Fission and fusion are complimentary power sources and producers of life-sustaining elements and molecules across the Universe. We've been in a natural heating cycle since the end of the Little Ice Age, cooking up ALL of the observed CO2 increases. The full cover-to-cover duration of the combined heating / cooling cycle runs about nine (9) centuries. The mass of our entire atmosphere is one millionth of the total mass of Earth. And we're worried about 100 to 200 ppm change in the 0.04 percent of our atmosphere that is CO2 ?
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (6) Dec 02, 2014
The mass of our entire atmosphere is one millionth of the total mass of Earth. And we're worried about 100 to 200 ppm change in the 0.04 percent of our atmosphere that is CO2 ?


This is like saying the mass of the all the plutonium in the nuclear arsenals of the world is a trillionth the mass of the earth, and we're worried about a few loose warheads...

Yeah, we're worried...

The Earth was 12 degrees hotter about 55 million years ago, the Antarctic was an alpine forest...and the CO2 levels were higher.
gkam
1.5 / 5 (23) Dec 02, 2014
You will have to forgive the scientists for assuming they know something.
Modernmystic
2.5 / 5 (4) Dec 02, 2014
A mathematical model has been developed that concurs with computer models. Meanwhile there has been a 10% increase in CO2 (NOAA empirical data) since the global average temperature *peaked* in 1998 (UAH and RSS data).


I'm wondering if you understand large systems. Do you know how long it takes an oil tanker to come to a complete stop after the engines stop? How long it takes to accelerate? Look at macro economics, politics, etc etc and tell me if change in large systems takes time or flips on a dime.

gkam;

You will have to forgive the scientists for assuming they know something.


I guess you'll have to forgive people for critical thinking and assuming they should question someone who bases his argument solely on the authority of someone else....
gkam
1.4 / 5 (22) Dec 02, 2014
Who does that?
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (2) Dec 02, 2014
You will have to forgive the scientists for assuming they know something.


Then

Who does that?


Now in fairness, please clarify; what did you mean by the first statement besides just believe them because they're scientists?
gkam
1.4 / 5 (22) Dec 02, 2014
No, I "believe" them because of their work, and the fact it must be reproducible, and eventually predictable. For every researcher who finds something, there are ten or more trying to prove him wrong.

I 'believe" them because I have earned a degree in the field, and understand the issues. What do you base your opinion on?
Modernmystic
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 02, 2014
No, I "believe" them because of their work, and the fact it must be reproducible, and eventually predictable. For every researcher who finds something, there are ten or more trying to prove him wrong.

I 'believe" them because I have earned a degree in the field, and understand the issues. What do you base your opinion on?


That and the fact that what they say makes sense to me. If you had all the authority in the world telling me that the sky was orange I'd be questioning it....

Kinda like questioning how they're going to get 100% power on a grid when they're generating it only 30% of the time :)

Authority alone is an insufficient argument on any subject, in fact it's a well accepted logical fallacy

http://en.wikiped...uthority
gkam
1.7 / 5 (23) Dec 02, 2014
I have no authority.

And darn little influence.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (26) Dec 02, 2014
Here is an interesting article.
"In the more than two decades since world leaders first got together to try to solve global warming, life on Earth has changed, not just the climate. It's gotten hotter, more polluted with heat-trapping gases, more crowded and just downright wilder.

The numbers are stark. Carbon dioxide emissions: up 60 percent. Global temperature: up six-tenths of a degree. Population: up 1.7 billion people. Sea level: up 3 inches. U.S. extreme weather: up 30 percent. Ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica: down 4.9 trillion tons of ice.

"Simply put, we are rapidly remaking the planet and beginning to suffer the consequences," says Michael Oppenheimer, professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University. Diplomats from more than 190 nations opened talks Monday at a United Nations global warming conference in Lima, Peru, to pave the way for an international treaty they hope to forge next year."
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 02, 2014
A link would have been nice gkam.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (12) Dec 02, 2014
A mathematical model has been developed that concurs with computer models. Meanwhile there has been a 10% increase in CO2 (NOAA empirical data) since the global average temperature *peaked* in 1998 (UAH and RSS data).


What "peak" is that? DO you understand that a "peak" means it has reached the top? Given that average temperature is higher this year than they were that year, clearly there has been no "peak". In fact, 2005, 2010, 2012 and 2014 were all hotter than 1998.

Yet, that doesn't really mean much either. What means something is the overall trend (ubamoron really has trouble understanding this). The overall trend is higher and higher temperatures. Every year. Relentlessly.

Here, try reading this, you might start to understand http://www.aip.or...rend.htm
gkam
1.8 / 5 (25) Dec 02, 2014
Oops, Mag, I included it another thread. I'll find it.

Here:
http://www.nbcnew...-n260001
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 02, 2014
Oops, Mag, I included it another thread. I'll find it.

Here:
http://www.nbcnew...-n260001

Thanks!
Terry Oldberg
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 02, 2014
One does not conduct an experiment by running a model on a computer. Thus the phrase "climate model experiments" is a misnomer. As the models are neither validated nor susceptible to validation by observational data the conclusions of this paper are scientific nonsense.
gkam
2 / 5 (27) Dec 02, 2014
Perhaps T Oldberg did not read the article?

One usually develops a model, then see how accurately it reproduces the past.
Mike_Massen
2.6 / 5 (17) Dec 03, 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 video aired on Australian TV recently which goes into 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
Mike_Massen
2.6 / 5 (17) Dec 03, 2014
Terry Oldberg claimed
One does not conduct an experiment by running a model on a computer
Wrong. Its done all the time. Eg. Automotive engine computers model the stoichiometric relationship of mass air flow to fuel, it's an experiment, the control system gaining feedback of the success of the experiment by virtue of exhaust oxygen sensor.

Terry Oldberg claimed
Thus the phrase "climate model experiments" is a misnomer.
No, its accurate enough in populist jargon as simple description of the process. It may not be a physical experiment but it is still an "experiment" per se'

Terry Oldberg claimed
As the models are neither validated nor susceptible to validation by observational data the conclusions of this paper are scientific nonsense
Wrong. Eg. Please lookup "observational data" re this aspect :-
http://en.wikiped...ignature

Focusing on semantics might be your best skill but, not when it comes to an education in Physics :-(
Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (16) Dec 03, 2014
richard_f_cronin muttered laconically
..The mass of our entire atmosphere is one millionth of the total mass of Earth.
Amazing such a thin layer comparably thinner than clingwrap over a basketball protects us from the searing heat or close to absolute zero of space !

richard_f_cronin sarcastically asked
And we're worried about 100 to 200 ppm change in the 0.04 percent of our atmosphere that is CO2 ?
And so we should be.

Look at Mars, has less than 0.07% of Earth's atmosphere, is farther away than Earth from the sun, yet STILL manages habitable temperatures that can reach 20 to 30+C in the shade, all helped along by a 95% CO2 content.

Or Venus also with 95%+ CO2, not that much closer to sun than us but, reaches 400C plus in the shade !

CO2 has KNOWN thermal properties of re-radiation, it doesnt take much to change our planet given we have a huge insolation from Sol. Please get physics understanding of properties of CO2 oh AND that of Specific heat !
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (14) 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 I hope to discussion of this particular phys.org article

Havent as yet found way to put scale on right hand axis re CO2 ppm, anyone have ideas ?
Tecknowolf
4 / 5 (12) Dec 03, 2014
Hats off to gkam and Mike_Massen for superbly using proof, reason and logic to destroy the nay sayers. Thank You

Mike_Massen
2.4 / 5 (14) Dec 03, 2014
Tecknowolf welcome, u ~ made me blush
Hats off to gkam and Mike_Massen for superbly using proof, reason and logic to destroy the nay sayers..
But admit, I'm bit sporadic, unusual product research to pursue 4 much donero !

Congrats especially in that regard to Captain Stumpy, he is far more consistent than I & offers great links to save, Concede I haven't had time to review as many as I could/should..

II Perth, Western Australia here since 1969, noticed increased humidity over last 30+ yrs with decreased rainfall for increasing population in most isolated capital city on Earth !

ie. http://niche.ii.net/AGW

Did 3 month stint in jungle of Sabah, East Malaysia 1998 where climate change felt as (tropical) jungle, for 1st time in living memory, had drought & BURNED - scary stuff, some pics on link from then eg see fires.jpg:-
http://members.ii...s/Power/

Hope u get to see the Catalyst video link I posted earlier ?

Where approx r u ?
Tecknowolf
4 / 5 (8) Dec 03, 2014
Here in Colorado, USA we have felt the changing climate. People in the mountains tell stories of huge snow storms in the past, but no where as much now. I wonder how much the planting of crops in what used to be arid open fields, and adding lakes and ponds all over has also caused weather changed.
I know family in upstate NY that talk about how weather used to be and is now.

Some people have said that solar changes could be at cause, our atmosphere acts like insulation and if we change how much heat reflects off or is held in our atmosphere with chemicals it would still be our fault even with solar changes.

I also like how people argue that this process is normal and the climate shifts. If you had a pendulum with a 100 meter length and 50 kilo weight, swing it in your yard and even the slightest breeze would change the swing minutely. Which is exactly what our pollution is doing.

Keep up the good work!
Mike_Massen
2.2 / 5 (13) Dec 03, 2014
Thanks Tecknowolf,
Issue of insolation (energy to Earth from Sun) has cropped up a few times, odd thing is the current solar (sunspot) cycle is less intense than usual & some claim this is the reason for reduced rate of warming as the timing of events overlaps to a degree but, this graphic shows the sun's energy is remarkably stable by ~0.1%
http://www.skepti...asic.gif

Fwiw: Here is an interesting link re the sun & it's magnetic field, am preparing a reply to someone else on phys.org but need to confirm other issues re sun & its unusual field

https://www.youtu...6mRDV5hY

& also this more pertinent re how it might affect earth's fields etc
http://www.nasa.g...C1GeftUl

Here goes a few billion tonnes from Sun in a volume greater than Earth by far on surface of Sun
https://www.youtu...YtzcYYTM
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 03, 2014
Some people have said that solar changes could be at cause
@Tecknowolf
also watch for Thermodynamics, Maggnus, Runrig and a few others posts... they are really good and explain a LOT!
About your quote... one reason that you are feeling the effects of the warming comes from this: http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf
for a slightly less technical perspective from the above study, watch her explain the study i linked in her video here: https://www.youtu...m9JAdfcs

another study you might like is this one: http://www.scienc...abstract
http://pubs.giss....al_1.pdf
(the second link is free, i think... i can't remember- one is paywalled)
the study explains WHY CO2 is so important to the warming trend

and remember, ALWAYS ask for peer reviewed studies from reputable sources (not blogs or articles) when someone starts throwing info out at you

ENJOY
Water_Prophet
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 03, 2014
Ah @runrig, Venus' greenhouse effect is fascinating, but not casually analogous to CO2 on Earth. It's a worthy read.
Oysteroid
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 04, 2014
zz5555 quoted ...
---------
Von Neumann: "With four parameters I can fit an elephant, with five I can make him wiggle his trunk."
---------
... and didn't even realise what a perfect description it is of both the article and the whole AGW fraud in general.
Mike_Massen
2.6 / 5 (15) Dec 04, 2014
Oysteroid claimed
and the whole AGW fraud in general.
Where is there any fraud ?

Measurements ?

Physics of greenhouse gases ?

Do u have ANY science training of ANY sort or r u easily led by propaganda ie A robot ?

Good thing about Science details is, when u get educated, u are far less likely to be manipulated by extraneous influences Eg. politics & unscientific dogmatic religious zealots who claim there can't be AGW because "god wouldnt let it happen" - no joke, I have met them & they also claimed god's communication is perfect when its only a book from dreams !

Explain 'fraud', where is it ?
http://woodfortre...ormalise

"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?"

Education !
zz5555
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 04, 2014

... and didn't even realise what a perfect description it is of both the article and the whole AGW fraud in general.


Can you point out any curve fitting exercise (ie, curve fitting with lots of parameters) that exists in the mainstream climate science? Climate models don't do this - and climate science neither stems from, nor depends on, climate models.

If not, why did you feel compelled to make up the whole "AGW fraud" statement?
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (16) Dec 04, 2014
Water_Prophet claimed
..Venus' greenhouse effect is fascinating, but not casually analogous to CO2 on Earth. It's a worthy read.
Beg pardon, did you mean to say "causally" instead or only "casual" ?

When u get a bit older & get educated in necessary physics pre-requisite before you complete (any hope) of doing physical chemistry as U claimed then yU can understand these key issues re CO2 r Factual, no herrings !

1. Multiple vibrational states
2. Emission spectra

To claim as U have previously CO2 being a "red herring" proves U have not achieved basic level of physics understanding, so U can leverage this to understand gas properties & the clear relationship between H2O & CO2.

Look at Mars Water_Prophet !
Day temps in the shade can reach 20-35C yet atmosphere is only ~0.07% of Earth but, like Venus has ~95% CO2. Some "red herring" that isnt it ?
Worked out comparative specific heat of CO2 on Mars vs Earth vs our oceans ?

Shakes head at Water_Prophet :-(
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 04, 2014
zz5555 quoted ...
---------
Von Neumann: "With four parameters I can fit an elephant, with five I can make him wiggle his trunk."
---------
... and didn't even realise what a perfect description it is of both the article and the whole AGW fraud in general.

yep, it's obvious really.
All the world's experts are lying to us.

Empirical science is all wrong, and all the things we've built based on that science don't work.
Now I know the psychology of denialist reasoning, but f*** me I cannot relate to it. Quite bizarre.
wlasley1
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 05, 2014
Scientific results are never going to convince science illiterates whose beliefs are threatened.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Dec 06, 2014
Here's a non-theoretical and obvious correlation, between inflation adjusted GDP and temperature:
http://www.truthf...2Bplugin
Scroll down to inflation adjusted GDP.
and temperature:
http://woodfortre....9/trend
Play with the date ranges.

Notice that it DOES NOT increase, as it would with CO2 increases, but goes up and down with GDP, and presumably, energy required by employees.

Look at how strong the correlation is. Especially the elbow in the 1970's. AGW-ers can DENY all they want, and deniers can keep denying, but it is right there.

Anthropomorphic change. No CO2 required.

Is there something wrong with citing these sites? They look perfectly reasonable to me, and show hands down a correlation between GDP and temperature, yet disprove, pretty smartly a causation between CO2 and temp.. CO2 "increasing," has been causing warming after all.
gkam
2 / 5 (25) Dec 06, 2014
Why would you assume no link between GDP and CO2 emissions? It would be direct.
Water_Prophet
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 06, 2014
gkam, nice try trying to stir the fires of CO2.
Of course it would be direct, but it would also "sum," not vary in proportion to. So if you were to plot, or do a regression on CO2 vs GDP, you'd find an increasing function in CO2, and a variable on in temperature and GDP. The correlation would be second order, if that, very weak.
GDP maps to temperature. It also directly corresponds to heat released from fossil fuels. Which, I will repeat is ~.1% of solar output, a colossal amount of heat, and we know is 100% occurring, unlike to CO2 paradigm, which, no matter who you are, you are still arguing about it.
gkam
2 / 5 (25) Dec 06, 2014
Pretty weak, WP.
Water_Prophet
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 06, 2014
Very weak, gkam.
Mike_Massen
2.6 / 5 (15) Dec 06, 2014
Water_Prophet
Is there something wrong with citing these sites?
Together YES. U IGNORE fact world is not USA, world GDP is the factor u SHOULD compare against - if U Must, bear in mind CO2 is at center of activity as bulk of WORLD STILL emits CO2 in relation to economy - DOH !

Water_Prophet claimed
They look perfectly reasonable to me, and show hands down a correlation between GDP and temperature
"hands down" is not empirical term, Y didn't U learn that in Physical Chemistry (PC). U also ignore ocean specific heat ocean re delay. U r falling into classic trap of trying to (arbitrarily) fit lines after event, a classical statistics fallacy, u should have learned this in maths, Y not ?.

Water_Prophet claimed
..et disprove, pretty smartly a causation between CO2 and temp.. CO2 "increasing,"
Wrong & badly so since u have missed SO MUCH re causal paths & TIME, a missing "obvious" correlation does NOT mean there's no causation !

Eg NOx stats on an engine !
howhot2
5 / 5 (4) Dec 07, 2014
Frpm the article;
A team of researchers from the Universities of Liverpool, Southampton and Bristol have derived the first theoretical equation to demonstrate that global warming is a direct result of the build-up of carbon emissions...


You know, I just wish the deniers would present us with theoretical proof that global warming is not the result of mankind's CO2 emissions. Deniers admit it. You can't do it! You can't produce a theory on global warming that doesn't fail. The funny part is, that failure to recognize global warming is a failure in logic. And it's the same logic the republicans use to justify their politcal antics; broken.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Dec 07, 2014
Well howhot, I am not a denier, but if you'd just read my above posts and links, you'd see pretty plainly why GHG are simply not a strong enough effect.

Perhaps you can explain how the 1/10000th the heat released by the Sun, released by fossil fuels, has no effect on the global climate. When 1/1000 fluctuations in the Sun natural cycle do...
And that that heat is released at ground level, where it is captured more effectively than solar flux.

Any of these things you'd like to discuss, I am open. But they result in CO2 being a lie designed to distract away from what we're doing to the environment.
FastEddy
1 / 5 (2) Dec 08, 2014
Frpm the article;
A team of researchers from the Universities of Liverpool, Southampton and Bristol have derived the first theoretical equation to demonstrate that global warming is a direct result of the build-up of carbon emissions...


You know, I just wish the deniers would present us with theoretical proof that global warming is not the result of mankind's CO2 emissions. Deniers admit it. You can't do it! You can't produce a theory on global warming that doesn't fail. The funny part is, that failure to recognize global warming is a failure in logic. ...


The failure of the theory of AWG is that there is no consideration for planet sources of heat >> and << that 98% of the longest term temperature records (back to 1600) indicate AWG has not been happening. (In 1620 the River Thames froze solid.)

Never in history has increasing taxes changed the weather. ... Baby, its cold outside.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Dec 08, 2014
Very weak, gkam.
@ALCHE/crybabypreacher
weak is making conjecture like this
if you'd just read my above posts and links, you'd see pretty plainly why GHG are simply not a strong enough effect
while completely ignoring a modern study showing the modeled and OBSERVED effects of CO2 and explaining the physics of how CO2 feedback actually forces the WV into a vicious loop in the following studies: http://www.scienc...abstract
http://pubs.giss....al_1.pdf
weak would be continuing to argue from the position of stupidity (because alche is already aware of the studies as i have posted them numerous times)

Weak is arguing against the SCIENC and the evidence with personal conjecture, a water bowl with ice and no knowledge of physics that is relevant because it ignores the tie/feedback between water vapor (WV) and CO2, which is WHY CO2 is called the
Principal Control Knob Governing Earth's Temperature


Bill589
1 / 5 (6) Dec 08, 2014
The earth is getting cooler while the CO2 levels still rise. So much for that theory - err, government ruse.

One important scientific fact that should not be ignored: These university global warming 'scientists' get paid by the government and their capitalist cronies that benefit from this battle against global warming.
Bill589
1 / 5 (6) Dec 08, 2014
Arctic ice is growing yet again - several years in a row now.
http://www.rightw...ars-ago/

My favorite line from the article:
"Gosh, it's almost as if global warming isn't about saving the environment at all and is actually all about income redistribution and padding their own pockets. Oh, wait… that's exactly what it's about."
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 08, 2014
The earth is getting cooler while the CO2 levels still rise. So much for that theory - err, government ruse. /q]

Where's your link to support your statement?

That's right, there isn't any.
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 08, 2014
Bill589 claimed
The earth is getting cooler while the CO2 levels still rise. So much for that theory..
Your problem is people like u make claims without evidence where is yours ?

Here is evidence of warming in just one data set & which is correlated with CO2, is it too difficult for you ? I am sure u can find others:-
http://woodfortre...ormalise

Bill589 claimed
These university global warming 'scientists' get paid by the government and their capitalist cronies that benefit from this battle against global warming.
It is well known big oil pays for lobbying & here is an example of just how huge their commercial base is, unlike university scientists they have far more money & benefit directly:-
http://en.wikiped...d_losses
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 08, 2014
Bill589 claimed
Arctic ice is growing yet again - several years in a row now.
http://www.rightw...ars-ago/
The link u offer clearly confirms its 'right wing' but, if you read it you would see it states:-
"..while the long-term trend still shows a decline", so u FAIL at an attempt to obfuscate, your own link confirms a DECLINE.

Bill589 claimed
My favorite line from the article:
"Gosh, it's almost as if global warming isn't about saving the environment at all and is actually all about income redistribution and padding their own pockets. Oh, wait… that's exactly what it's about."
U don't seem to have an education to know the difference between MASS & EXTENT ?

Try Science not a political site, such as:-
http://arctic.atm...osphere/

Failed again haven't you, why do U bother, can U explicitly deny u are paid to obfuscate ?
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 08, 2014
Water_Prophet who earlier claimed to be a Physical Chemist obviously could NOT have gained a university degree with this claim
Any of these things you'd like to discuss, I am open. But they result in CO2 being a lie designed to distract away from what we're doing to the environment.
Because U Water_Prophet, HAVENT looked at the physics & maths of CO2:-

Tell us about CO2's vibrational states & its re-radiation spectra, do u know what that means ?

Findany study which shows CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas ?

Thermal properties of CO2 have been known for > 100 years, why do U ignore Physics ?

Here, in scientific terms U SHOULD have learned from your claimed university degree:-

"How can adding a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere such as CO2 with known thermal properties of re-radiation NOT increase thermal resistivity ?"

Can u do that Water_Prophet, U know its called the maths of ADDITION ?

btw: Spun your brass bowl "climate model" yet, how small is it btw ?

LOL !
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 21, 2014
ubavontuba claimed
So how then, do they explain the last 18 years?
http://woodfortre....8/trend
Fair question, one is distribution of heat re comparative specific heats.

One might ask why U don't accept definition of climate re 30 year average, U were hung up on definitions yet choose to ignore the one re Climate - Y is that ?

This more telling, your own choice of data set for DEFINED 30 yr period:-
http://woodfortre....9/trend

And whats more, here is another data set AND with CO2 as well:-
http://woodfortre...ormalise

Have you EVER looked at the importance of specific heat ubavontuba ?

Also have U ever looked at this:-
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/

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.