The Max Clifford of AGW bloggers is telling us how warm the global temperatures have been. Nope folks February UAH data shows the cooling trend of four years and the plateau of the 18 years shows no major trend either way. Maybe that's why the Phantom Ofsted Blower of Dartmoor is strangley silent on this one.




Could it be that 80ppm that humans have put into the atmosphere has reached a saturation point where it no longer has any effect on catastrophic warming.

The Arctic Fox, Emperor Penquin, cuddly Polar Bear, the Clown Fish, ringed Seals and Tattooed Punk Squid. Don't give up it will get better.



http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/03/...14-0-17-deg-c/

On Thursday, March 6, 2014 7:42:00 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
The Max Clifford of AGW bloggers is telling us how warm the global temperatures have been. Nope folks February UAH data shows the cooling trend of four years and the plateau of the 18 years shows no major trend either way.

denialist ranty stuff snipped

You simply don't know what you are talking about. Feb was the 9th warmest in the UAH record. All those warmest Februaries have occurred since 1997. In addition, the context of this warmth is that currently there are cooler than average temperatures across the ENSO regions, as there have been for almost the whole f the last 3 years and the PDO in a cool phase. Every indicator points to the fact that the globe should be cooler than it is, yet we are close to record global temperatures. The reason is an underlying warming trend which is almost certainly caused by anthropogenic releases of CO2 - a view with which almost every single scientist and every single National science academy on earth concurs.

Please do some research and learn a little, at least, before posting and making yourself look like a denialist idiot.

On Thursday, 6 March 2014 20:05:23 UTC, Dawlish wrote:
On Thursday, March 6, 2014 7:42:00 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:

The Max Clifford of AGW bloggers is telling us how warm the global temperatures have been. Nope folks February UAH data shows the cooling trend of four years and the plateau of the 18 years shows no major trend either way..



denialist ranty stuff snipped



You simply don't know what you are talking about. Feb was the 9th warmest in the UAH record. All those warmest Februaries have occurred since 1997. In addition, the context of this warmth is that currently there are cooler than average temperatures across the ENSO regions, as there have been for almost the whole f the last 3 years and the PDO in a cool phase. Every indicator points to the fact that the globe should be cooler than it is, yet we are close to record global temperatures. The reason is an underlying warming trend which is almost certainly caused by anthropogenic releases of CO2 - a view with which almost every single scientist and every single National science academy on earth concurs.



Please do some research and learn a little, at least, before posting and making yourself look like a denialist idiot.


Are you endangered due to Climate Change Mr Chips?

On Thursday, March 6, 2014 8:07:17 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Thursday, 6 March 2014 20:05:23 UTC, Dawlish wrote:

On Thursday, March 6, 2014 7:42:00 PM UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:



The Max Clifford of AGW bloggers is telling us how warm the global temperatures have been. Nope folks February UAH data shows the cooling trend of four years and the plateau of the 18 years shows no major trend either way.







denialist ranty stuff snipped







You simply don't know what you are talking about. Feb was the 9th warmest in the UAH record. All those warmest Februaries have occurred since 1997.. In addition, the context of this warmth is that currently there are cooler than average temperatures across the ENSO regions, as there have been for almost the whole f the last 3 years and the PDO in a cool phase. Every indicator points to the fact that the globe should be cooler than it is, yet we are close to record global temperatures. The reason is an underlying warming trend which is almost certainly caused by anthropogenic releases of CO2 - a view with which almost every single scientist and every single National science academy on earth concurs.







Please do some research and learn a little, at least, before posting and making yourself look like a denialist idiot.





Are you endangered due to Climate Change Mr Chips?

Well there you go. When your posts are challenged, you cannot respond. You could, however, try the usual foul-mouthed insults, veiled threats and outright lies, instead of the idiot deflections larry; they usually work well, don't they?

In article ,
Lawrence Jenkins writes:
snip
Could it be that 80ppm that humans have put into the atmosphere
has reached a saturation point where it no longer has any effect
on catastrophic warming.

I think that the short answer is: no, it couldn't.
--
John Hall "He crams with cans of poisoned meat
The subjects of the King,
And when they die by thousands G.K.Chesterton:
Why, he laughs like anything." from "Song Against Grocers"

On Thursday, 6 March 2014 20:50:23 UTC, John Hall wrote:
In article ,

Lawrence Jenkins writes:

snip

Could it be that 80ppm that humans have put into the atmosphere

has reached a saturation point where it no longer has any effect

on catastrophic warming.



I think that the short answer is: no, it couldn't.

--

John Hall "He crams with cans of poisoned meat

The subjects of the King,

And when they die by thousands G.K.Chesterton:

Why, he laughs like anything." from "Song Against Grocers"

So its a linear process doubling co2 twice the effect.

On Thursday, 6 March 2014 20:58:36 UTC, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Thursday, 6 March 2014 20:50:23 UTC, John Hall wrote: In article , Lawrence Jenkins writes: snip Could it be that 80ppm that humans have put into the atmosphere has reached a saturation point where it no longer has any effect on catastrophic warming. I think that the short answer is: no, it couldn't. -- John Hall

So its a linear process doubling co2 twice the effect.

There is a temperature response to a CO2 increase. It doesn't have to be linear for there to be a response. In fact it is known that the response is *not* linear but that doesn't negate the view that excess CO2 causes warming.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message
...

So its a linear process doubling co2 twice the effect.

Is it not an *exponential* process, beyond a certain point at least.
You reach a certain level, a 'tipping point' if you like and you get
runaway warming.
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl
Snow videos:
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3QvmL4UWBmHFMKWiwYm_gg

On 07/03/2014 05:19, Col wrote:
"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message
...

So its a linear process doubling co2 twice the effect.

Is it not an *exponential* process, beyond a certain point at least.
You reach a certain level, a 'tipping point' if you like and you get
runaway warming.

That's why nobody books holidays on Venus.

--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

On 07/03/2014 05:19, Col wrote:
"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message
...

So its a linear process doubling co2 twice the effect.

Actually it is a lot weaker than linear in the regime that we exist in.

It is roughly speaking logarithmic in the concentration of CO2 in the
atmosphere at present and likely to remain so until the seas near the
equator get to a point where the build up of water vapour in the
atmosphere becomes exponential and self reinforcing then you get thermal
runaway. We are a very long way away from that scenario.

This is essentially what happened to Venus leading to a near total loss
of its original complement of water. The H2O being ripped apart by UV in
the high atmosphere and hydrogen escaping into space.

A rough working number for the effect of doubling CO2 is +3K on global
temperature (the range being 2K to 6K 95% confidence level depending on
your choice of model and various assumptions). The classic models tend
to make conservative assumptions that are most easily defended from
attack and as such might well understate the extent of warming.

Is it not an *exponential* process, beyond a certain point at least.
You reach a certain level, a 'tipping point' if you like and you get
runaway warming.

Although theoretically possible I did once have a chance to torment one
of the GCM models and added 5000ppm CO2 (that is just shy of *2^4) in a
single pulse in the hope of boiling the oceans but it only raised
temperatures by around 16K (12K/CO2 & 4K/H2O with more warming near the
poles). A rough heuristic is that a 10K increase in temperature roughly
doubles the atmospheric water vapour pressure.

So long as there is permanent ice at the poles and the equatorial seas
stay below ISTR about 60C life on the planet gets to survive although
you can forget about the Netherlands, New York, London and Tokyo.

Even if we cooked the planet I expect there are some extremophiles
lurking in the Yellowstone Springs sat waiting for their chance to
recolonise a very much warmer planet (instead of being harvested for
their genetic components to use in biological washing powders).

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

PS Apologies if this gets posted twice news server is playing up.