Does CO2 Drive the Earth's Climate System? Comments on the Latest NASA GISS Paper

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important greenhouse gas, and its role in regulating global surface temperatures has been recognized for over a century (Arrhenius, 1896; Chamberlin, 1899). It is now generally accepted that the 36% rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1860 (280–380 ppm) is partly responsible for the concomitant rise in global surface temperatures (Tett et al., 1999; Crowley, 2000b; Barnett et al., 2001; Mitchell et al., 2001; Jones et al., 2003; Karl and Trenberth, 2003; Karoly et al., 2003; Miller et al.,2004). Moreover, ice core records indicate a strong coupling between CO2 and temperature for at least the last 650,000 years (Petit et al., 1999; Siegenthaler et al., 2005). Given this observed, positive relationship between CO2 and temperature and the physical laws that govern it, an a priori expectation is that the CO2 -temperature link is of great antiquity.

Royer 2006

Atmospheric scientists plus every research organization on the planet, disagrees with you northerngirl.

The whole denier argument is that this number doesn't count.

The argument is that if you cannot provide a mechanism for why temperatures were as high or higher 1000 years ago, then you cannot solely ascribe todays temperatures to CO2. Correlation does not equal causation.

Perhaps you'll explain in your "paper".

Here try working with this :

Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today's warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms.

Here

Perhaps you'll explain in your "paper".

That all you got?

These causes of warming contrast significantly with today's warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms.

They "know" this? How. They "know" that today it is caused by AGW so it could not be the same thing.

Circular reasoning it is.

Like the Greeks explaining planetary motion with epicycles. It works, it just does not correspond to reality.

Oh, by the way, that Moberg 2005 graph is a replica of the MBH-98 and 2004 papers. Sorry, it has been thoroughly debunked.

An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence. Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2. Surface measurements find more downward infrared radiation warming the planet's surface. This provides a direct, empirical causal link between CO2 and global warming.

The greenhouse gas qualities of carbon dioxide have been known for over a century. In 1861, John Tyndal published laboratory results identifying carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas that absorbed heat rays (longwave radiation). Since then, the absorptive qualities of carbon dioxide have been more precisely quantified by decades of laboratory measurements (Herzberg 1953, Burch 1962, Burch 1970, etc).

Ya know Bob - 29 Billion "Tonnes" sounds like a lot - until you compare it to the weight of the atmosphere on a light day... then it ain't squat.

Ooop! NG beat me to it - and did a better job of it. ;-D

An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence. Satellite measurements of infrared spectra.....

You do understand what the word "empirical" means don't you? It means without theoretical foundation.

By the way NG, love the new Kitty pic!

NG, please ask your kitty for me if she believes in Intelligent Design over Evolution, like what your hero Roy Spencer believes in.

Roxanne - are talking cats another of your "Scientific" facts?

Northerngirl,

29 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide

The whole denier argument is that this number doesn't count.

Given that this is less than 0.0005% by weight of the earth's atmosphere, it hardly does.

You know the interesting thing about answers like yours to legitimate arguments like the first two sentences of the quote? The retort is an opinion without a scientific basis.

Lets put it in a real world corrolary you can understand.

Lets take a punchbowl that holds 2 liters ( a little over 2 quarts or 2000 ml) and fill it with really tasty punch.

Everybody drinks up and says WOW that's great punch! Then I refill the punch and perform a little experiment:

I pull a vial of cat urine from my pocket and carefully measure out 1 ML (.0005%) and drop it into the punch; will you still drink it? What if it was cyanide? Would .0005% cyanide cause you to pause or would you ask for a glass? Most medicines when absorbed produce serum concentrations in the thousandths of a percent but yet they either heal or kill. My wifes Chemotherapy drug is measured in nanograms per liter but it makes her hair fall out!

Your proclimation from authority is irrational and uninformed!

This is the problem with the opposition to AGW it is based on simple thinking, unrefined statements lame psuedo science and unproven anecdotes! You always present lame statements that are superficially based and easily disproven and then scream that science does not accept your "proof"!

Unless you are willing to drink the punch after I add that little extra, you need to rethink your position!

By the way if the cyanide was pure .000049 grams of it (quite a bit less than 1ml) produces a leathal dose in two liters of fluid so the punch would kill everyone that drank it.

Kind of like the CO2 in the atmosphere will eventually do if we don't stop being asses about climate change!

The incremental "warming" from CO2 is less and less with each incremental increase, it is not linear. The first 20 ppm does most of the "warming," the next 20ppm, a lot less, the next 20 even less, so on so once you get to 300+ ppm, the incremental warming for a 20ppm increase is negligible. A 5ppm increase would not have a discernable effect.

Just to show a different way of figuring this here is a link:

http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/howmuch.htm

I'll change your physics ms northerngirl, I'm voting a straight democratic ticket

I'm certain that our sun and all other possible drivers of climate including both cow & my own farts, have all already been studied ad nauseum & ruled out in our current accelerating warming trend.

The sun's output has barely changed since 1970 and is irrelevant to recent global warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

So I'm sorry MLCook, but the only known culprit behind our planetary warming trend is unregulated & massive greenhouse gas pollution from the products of BP, Koch Oil and Exxonmobil.

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm

Sorry northerngirl, but it looks like John Cook is sticking to the peer reviewed science like what I'm doing; you should try it sometime.

Next up you will start advising me to believeth thee unto Intelligent Design plus shill for exxon like what Roy Spencer does.

The following link is alot more informative, NG :

Stanford Report, June 25, 2010

Scientific expertise lacking among 'doubters' of climate change, according to analysis by Stanford researchers

An analysis of the scientific prominence and expertise of climate researchers shows that the few who are unconvinced of human-caused climate change rank far below researchers who are convinced. Most news media accounts fail to include that context when reporting claims from the doubters.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/june/climate-change-doubters-062510.html

Obfuscexageration

Lmao! That perfectly describes the sun-worshipping, anti-science, flat-earthers.

Don't forget the Viners for Fred Thompson , that was a real choice forecast.

space this is yoiur flaw 8.2:

Reading is not their strong suit, nor is logic.

You would delete for this, I however would not that is why I am calling your bluff, you are a shirt stuffer, the same goes for you NORTHERNGIRL, delete me if you must but your fraud has been exposed.

In fact, I predict a sudden onset little Ice Age as the effects of solar changes (not properly ruled out, alas) catch up to our planet.

Saved in the President Fred Thompson file.

Mr Cook has often said this fall the early cold in Alaska was driving the geese and ducks down .

Winter arrives late in Southcentral Alaska

Indian summer making skiers antsy

Read more: http://www.adn.com/2010/10/22/1514852/winter-arrives-late-in-southcentral.html#ixzz13JIua66T

I love the fact that the Global Warming True Believers keep coming back to the same irrelevant thing - the involvement/funding of science by the oil industry. They just can't stop shooting off their one shot gun! Oil! Oil! OIL! Money is neutral. It can be spent by the Left and the Right and AGW people - and as proof we can look at the FORTUNE being made by Algore and his Former Goldman Sucks CEO and partner David Blood off of trading the European Carbon Credit certificates.

Their one shot gun has proven so effective in the past, they use it on EVERY target they find - whether the target has taken oil money or not.

Perhaps without realizing it, the AGW people who are NOT making fortunes but who Preach the Gospel of AGW have accidentally hit on the Main article of Faith - "It's okay for OUR leaders to make scads of money from this scam - but REAL scientists may not."

Well they got their money's worth when they bought you two, and right cheaply I might add.

Money? I didn't get any money... I have a brain and know how to use it... except when it comes to making money by fraud and being a crook. I've never been able to do that, which is one of the main reasons I left the Democrat party.

Money? I didn't get any money...

and right cheaply I might add.

Each and every scientific research organization that exists will say the money is well-spent & that we need to stop polluting ourselves into a mass extinction event.

But Exxon & David Koch both agree with you northerngirl, that the money was not well spent and that very little action should be taken (as it will interfere with the multiple billions they make annually, the planet & civilization be damned).

The strongest refutations of intelligent design are its proponents!

Christine O'Donnell, Sarah Palin, and Glenn of Beck, are laboratory quality samples of the mutation in question.

Despite the protestations of the religious we are just apes with sharp tools, middle fingers and an opposable thumb with which we can grasp a club; or turn the key on a car and destroy ourselves slowly!

The scientists who say CO2 is closely coupled with global climate, have been proven correct since the mid 19th century, northerngirl.

And the deniers are simply Flat-earthers.

If you think that dependence on oil is a security risk, then you need to get rid of the Department of Energy. Reducing US dependence on Arab oil was the main STATED reason Jimminy Carter created the DoE, and since then our Arab oil dependence and usage has MUSHROOMED!!! Maybe that's why Jimminy Carter is so beloved by the Arabs?

http://www.desmogblog.com/ny-times-editorial-cheney-trained-republicans-have-disappeared-fog-disinformation-climate

That is the real reason why our fossil fuel addiction has MUSHROOMED!!! out of control.

gnur, I didn't anticipate your response, but I like it, we are trying to make sense here and I liked your contribution, very much. I think you are younger than me but at times I have been wrong. I have made mistakes, crush them with facts but don't slap them up side of the head, even if they deserve it, give them an argument that transcends their ability to think.

Blayde,

Thank you, it's nice to know there are others out there that still think instead of sit passively and accept what others present without questioning.

I am 54 years old so I am not sure about the youthfulness of my viewpoint compared to yours but your point is well taken and flattering. I try to temper my disdain for ignorance with my desire to ignite the lamp of reason in the heads of the intellectually lazy. Like your statement indicates, I have found it sometimes frustrating to tread the line between education and condescension, but occasionally I have a success and that keeps me inspired to continue.

Again thanks for the kind words, keep trying to enlighten!