John Cook posted the picture above.
Some minor problems. Over the last decade, winter temperatures have been plummeting
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
“Nights warming faster than days”
That is known as the Urban Heat Island effect.
Less heat escaping into space.
Not according to NASA satellites.
Pattern of ocean warming
Not according to NOAA buoys
The rest of Cook’s points related to CO2, not warming. What a ridiculous excuse for science.
That and Dr. Roy just said heat is leaving faster than they thought…..
….well duh
You can look at any of the ice core temperature reconstructions and see that.
Which reminds me……who was the moron that put that zero/normal line right at the very top of those temperature reconstructions?
….and who were the morons that not only let them get away with that……but actually seem to believe it
What? Is Cook’s target audience 6 y/o ?
Just how much less oxygen do they reckon is in the air ?
If we assume a reciprocal relationship between O2 & CO2, then a rise in CO2 from 290ppm to 393ppm would entail a reduction in O2 from ~208,000ppm to ~208,000ppm*.
*or for the truly asinine, 207,897,000ppb (or 207,897,000,000ppt . . . & cetera)
(mind you the fact that the burning of hydrocarbons produces water, makes the reciprocal relationship a bit sketchy, depending on the saturation as much as ½* of the consumed O2 can be put into H2O rather than CO2)
* AFIK, the least saturated (common) hydrocarbon would be Benzine (or Acetylene) with a 1:1 relationship between H & C, which would give you 3H2O + 6CO2 for a 1:4 relative Oxygen split; Methane at CH4 being the highest H:C relationship would give 2H2O + 1CO2 and a 1:1 Oxygen split. I don’t know, but maybe some super long-straight-chain carbon with a couple of Hydrogens at each end exists. I’m not counting it, though since it’s probably classified as “soot”.
“If we assume a reciprocal relationship between O2 & CO2, then a rise in CO2 from 290ppm to 393ppm would entail a reduction in O2 from ~208,000ppm to ~208,000ppm*.”
I’m happy with that.
You forgot: More CO2 equals more vegetation growth which produces more oxygen as a result resulting in a growth of one or two ppb over time.
At least there’s nothing anti-science about the inability to distinguish th’ element Carbon from þe chemical compound carbon dioxide.
Those evil aerosols are gumming up the works, by cooling the oceans and making it snow over the whole Southern Hemisphere. Now we just don’t have global warming, we have global weirding as well!
The ultimate topper that proves CAGW is real is the recent large increase in the number of cases of restless leg syndrome. Debunk that statistic if you can!
Does it matter whence a tree gets its carbon? Less fossil fuel would mean less food for the trees. Why do these people hate trees?
The tree becomes evil.
Life is Evil.
Somehow all that fossil fuel carbon thing that reminds me the statement I read somewhere that Brazilian ethanol produces less CO2 then the one produced in other countries and therefore is much better when it comes to saving the planet.
You read that in the new magazine…..
Soros Times
Muito prazer em conhece-lo,
Supposedly processing sugar for ethanol fuel results in less by product CO2 than when corn. is used, I don’t know how true that is or if the difference is very significant. I don’t care that much because I’m not worried about CO2 in the atmosphere.
Probably related to the fact that so much of the sugar cane harvest is still done by hand. & they’re probably discounting the fact that the human being is one of the most expensive/inefficient machines ever devised for converting various hydrocarbons into work.
But, BUT it is all Natural CO2! 😉
Typo in the top post …
“John Kook posted the picture above.”
I am interested in Cook’s claim that the troposhere is going higher ad that the stratosphere is expandinding. Does he have real long term data to back this up? Does anyone here have data or URL of a site that has this data? TIA