Sentences with phrase «co2 induced»

The myth of CO2 induced warming can be attacked at its foundations.

However, since the changes in CO2 induced radiative forcing are glacially slow and very well mixed, my conceptual guess is that these changes are subtle and very hard to detect because they don't meaningfully alter the dynamic equilibrium of the pure virgin atmosphere / hydrosphere / biosphere.

It takes a biased presentation of the facts to make the case the CO2 induced temperature rise will increase 1 °C or that the CO2 rise isn't beneficial.

He says this should be done on libertarian grounds even if there wasn't evidence for CO2 induced warming.

The latter we are responsible for via indirection, as without FF CO2 induced warming this would not have happened.

I have heard rumors about the peer review process from other scientific journals not willing or not wanting to print papers, because the papers didn't support Co2 induced global warming theories.

If relative humidity remains constant, CO2 induced warming would cause increasing specific humidity and a strong positive feedback.

Mann et al certainly seem to suggest that a repetition of the natural forcings that produced the MCA coupled with CO2 induced warming could land us in a heap of trouble.

I do, because there is CO2 induced warming, due to the lagg in the climate system, in the pipeline.

Should anyone be surprised that such a scheme confirms the existence of CO2 induced climate change?

The reason why I think it's wrong is that in her calculation of ESS she takes the radiative forcing caused by albedo changes (resulting from the massive change in ice coverage between a glacial and interglacial state) and assumes it to be a feedback on the CO2 induced temperature - change.

Stick to predicting CO2 induced thermageddon.

This is the fundamental reason for the CO2 induced cooling.»

The mainstream media has bought into the false narrative of CO2 induced climate change, so it regurgitates anything that supports that view, whether factually correct or not.

Perhaps the only concern is Greenland melting but even there we know it has been just as warm in the 30's and 40's and there are many studies now that say the melt isn't apparently due to CO2 induced warming but is due to winds and / or black carbon.

If Mann's flat slope for hundreds of years and the upslope of the 80's was correct, that would prove CO2 induced warming, if there was a direct correlation between CO2 levels and warming.

Both the probability of damage from CO2 induced global warming (the range of projected temps) and the cost of damage and / or mitigation (technology marches on and gets cheaper) decades in the future are unknown.

If 300 watts of ghg back radiation warms the earths surface by 30 degrees K above thermodynamic equilibrium, 300 + 1.5 watts / m2 of extra co2 induced warming will proportionately warm it by too small an amount to measure.

Therefore I should have used 3.0 C as upper limit for TCR leading to 1.05 C rather than 1.0 C for the upper limit for CO2 induced warming.

Revelle, it may be recalled, was the professor that Gore credits with introducing him to the horrors of CO2 induced warming.

Well, it just had to happen somehow because CO2 induced warming is true.

Like how can there be this pause we're seeing when the accepted range of climate sensitivity and GCMs can't duplicate it without subtracting CO2 induced warming.

Brandon Gates's commentary as in point 1) is based the premise that dangerous human - caused global warming requiring immediate radical mitigating action is occurring and has been since ~ 1800 and any observations that do not accord with or contradict that a priori assumption are airily dismissed by «that is the way CO2 induced warming occurs».

I can do no more than refer you to Einstein's work, and later work by Feynman, and you will get an appreciation of why physicists who have not subscribed to the popular hysteria that is CO2 induced global warming, have nothing but contempt for the whole silly hypothesis.

If corruption includes fools or frauds accepting money whilst providing absolutely nothing useful in return, then all self proclaimed climate scientists with a belief in CO2 induced warming should be prosecuted, surely?

No CO2 induced warming.

If the CO2 induced warming theory is correct then we should be worried about warming and presumably doing something to mitigate it.

The IPCC report and its publicity statements deliberately distort the continued ocean temperature rise by conflating it with «global warming» when it is merely the transfer of air heat into the oceans from the temperature rise prior to 1998, not CO2 induced air warming since 1998.

Coby, You pointed to the PETM as being an example of CO2 induced warming.

However, the actual data suggests that the AGW alarmists have consistently over estimated the effect of CO2 induced warming.

Your scheme misses the point that one of the major viewpoints is that there are no CO2 induced global warming problems to come.

The step up in average temperatures during the ENSO cycle looks a lot more like a chaotic abrupt event than it does like CO2 induced warming.

However at that point there will be little concern about CO2 induced global warming.

Then turning around and proclaiming any hint of warming as proof of CO2 induced CAGW.

The»em barrassingly crude» model suggests that one can change the estimate of CO2 induced warming from an estimate of 2.2 degrees into an estimate of 1.4 degrees.

They plug - in whatever «conveniently» arrives at the conclusion that we have CO2 induced global warming.

Will the next step be to take your CO2 induced warming curve and multiply by 0.2, 0.5, 0.8 and re-do the fits to see what the remaining signal looks like?

If there is any Climate Sensitivity to CO2, to date we have been unable to eek out the signal to CO2 induced warming from the noise of natural variation notwithstanding the use of our best and most sophisticated measuring devices and the inherent shortcomings of our measurement systems and error bounds.

Perfect climate, year after year, while the rest of the world faces hottest year ever as we face our co2 induced bush fire burning hell.

This in turn suggests that CO2 induced warming must also be a fairly weak effect, unless I am missing something.

«My interpretation of D'Anrea's studies is that he believes in present day CO2 induced global warming.»

CO2 induced global warming is nonsense.

Nature of Cumulus Convection The AGW theory and the many AGW global model simulations assume that tropospheric relative humidity (RH) will remain quasi-constant as CO2 induced blockage of infrared (IR) radiation brings about temperature rises.

There is a long and growing list of statements by promoters of human CO2 induced global warming that have proven incorrect.

Now the IPCC says that 50 % of warming is probably coming from humans and 50 % is natural variation so if we assume that 50 % of all the warming from 1850 to now is CO2 induced (which it is not, the bit from 1850 to 1950 is unlikely to be CO2 related) at best we causing just 0.77 degrees of warming due to mans gasses, and the other 0.77 degrees must be something else which won't necessarily accumulate.

At some point in time the public needs to wake up and realize that the alarmists are most likely exaggerating the amount of CO2 induced warming and that there is no catastrophe coming.

That's all that comes to mind when I read comments about massive flooding, «unprecendented» tornado activity, the east sizzling related to CO2 induced climate change.

I think the statement on «acting on climate mitigation and adaptation» has been mis - interpreted through the prism of CO2 induced climate change.

CO2 induced warming goes down, BUT the Milankovitch orbital mechanics still dictate that in 10,000 years we will be closer to the sun, & probably warmer.

My problem with the 500 year scenario is that CO2 induced warming increases the amount of energy staying on earth, thus melting (some of?)