This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
There is a 95 percent correlation between Earth’s temperatures and sunspots since 1860. There is virtually no correlation between our temperatures and CO2 in the atmosphere.
Let the accusations of being a denier begin!!!
If the climate models’ original greenhouse predictions had been valid, the Earth’s temperatures would have risen several degrees more by now than they have. The Earth’s net warming since 1940 is a barely noticeable 0.2 degrees C, over 70 years. For the sake of argument, let’s give the alarmists credit for half of this, or 0.1 degree C.
Moreover, the Earth has experienced no discernible temperature increase since 1998, nearly nine years ago. Remember, too, that the atmosphere is approaching CO2 saturation--after which more CO2 will have no added climate forcing power.
Al Gore and his cronies just want to make money from the sale of "carbon credits". This sale does absolutely nothing to change anything but the contents of different bank accounts.
I watched a glowing piece on the nightly news last night (Anne Thompson) where she touted nearly zero carbon emissions from a wood chip boiler. Either they left a lot out of the piece or it's a blatant falsehood.
If that's science, perhaps someone should tell her that wood chips are made of CARBON and the energy comes from burning CARBON which produces the evil carbon dioxide.
No wonder our kids are being led down a garden path if the likes of their environmental correspondent doesn't know the basic science.
Kids who've completed their regular assignments may get extra credit from this:
During the most prominent and best-studied hyperthermal, the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM; about 55 million years ago), the global temperature increased by more than 5 °C in less than 10,000 years6 (Fig. 3). At about the same time, more than 2,000 Gt C as CO2 — comparable in magnitude to that which could occur over the coming centuries — entered the atmosphere and ocean. Evidence for this carbon release is found in sedimentary records.
What a lot of people are refusing to acknowledge is that it was the major winter disaster in China that has dramatically cut their own rice production and other foodstuffs.
Also forest fires emit a considerable amount of CH4, which, however, remained surprisingly constant over time. The isotopic measurements show no signs of CH4 emissions by a destabilization of marine gas hydrate reservoirs when climate was warming.
Controversy Ensues:
Great seed Bodhi1!
Thank you.
Let the accusations of being a denier begin!!!
Al Gore and his cronies just want to make money from the sale of "carbon credits". This sale does absolutely nothing to change anything but the contents of different bank accounts.
I watched a glowing piece on the nightly news last night (Anne Thompson) where she touted nearly zero carbon emissions from a wood chip boiler. Either they left a lot out of the piece or it's a blatant falsehood.
If that's science, perhaps someone should tell her that wood chips are made of CARBON and the energy comes from burning CARBON which produces the evil carbon dioxide.
No wonder our kids are being led down a garden path if the likes of their environmental correspondent doesn't know the basic science.
http://globalwarming101.com/index.php?option=com_content&view;=category&id;=97&Itemid;=42
Kids who've completed their regular assignments may get extra credit from this:
http://www.es.ucsc.edu/%7Ejzachos/pubs/Zachos_Dickens_Zeebe_08.pdf
Yes and from the Vostok and other ice cores (GISP2, GRIP) we find that CO2 lags temperature by several hundred years.
Linked here.
Sorry npat.
Here is another nice graph. Take a look at the recent Sea Ice anomaly.
The southern hemisphere just had the largest amount of ice in summer on record with one exception and now we are moving toward the southern winter.
Here is the southern hemisphere ice pack area.
Re #5.1 -
Global warming CO2 feedbacks and lags in ocean warming are responsible for apparent CO2 / temperature lags in past warming episodes.
Re # 6.0 -
Additional floating ice was created due to collapsing Antarctic ice shelves.
npat
Do you even look at these links? Take a look at the extent of the ice that is part of the ice pack. NASA does not count icebergs as part of the total.
Willing blindness does not help your position.
I didn't see a write-up and references to go with your chart, and it doesn't jive with this recent article:
Freshening of deep Antarctic waters worries experts
http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/34921
npat
Do you not pay attention to the address that you are looking at? This is NASA's daily data.
We are now starting experience rationing of foodstuffs because of the "Global Warming" scare.
Dr.
What a lot of people are refusing to acknowledge is that it was the major winter disaster in China that has dramatically cut their own rice production and other foodstuffs.
An explanation for CO2 peaking after CO2 lies in methane burbs.
That should read: An explanation for CO2 peaks after global temperature peaks lies in methane burbs.
There is absolutely no evidence for this and the CO2 linearly follows temperature which invalidates your proposition.
Here is a story today that further invalidates your thesis.
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Methane_Sources_Over_The_Last_30000_Years_999.html