I have a hard following you to tell you the truth. Of course at the end of the ice ages the CO2 feedback started around 800 years after the reversal of temperature ( caused by the Milankovitch cycles ). Scientists have never said that CO2 was leading temperature in these cases. Those who say that CO2 lead temperature in this case are either misinformed or are distorting the facts.

Btw the 800 years delay is pretty much what would be expected in that case because the CO2 is emitted due to the changes in oceans. Scientists are not really surprised by this delay.

however, the warming from the bottom temperature to the top temperature takes about 5000 years at the end of an ice age, so the CO2 feedback has around 4000 years to have an effect. It is ONE of several feedback that happen in that particular case.

Again, you can’t extrapolate what is going on now from what happened at the end of ice ages, it is not the same type of climate forcing.

As for the models, they have become better, and they can be underestimating what will happen as well as overestimating it. So saying that they may not be accurate doesn’t mean that we should not be carefull and reduce our emissions.

Okay…I believe CO2 is one cause , but the water vapour is still the main cause. IPCC does not include WV as GHG.

Possibly, but Al (aye elle) is simply a shortened version of my name!

You ain’t the first forumite to make that mistake and I doubt you’ll be the last.

I immediately tought about Simon and Telefunken; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq-gYOrU8bA

Ok, now it is clear.

You are pretty sure. The vast majority of climate scientists are rather sure of the contrary.

However, it is true that most of the warming of the first part of the 20th century was probably not due mainly to GHGs, because 1) the levels had not increase that much yet, and 2) it takes in the order of 100 years to see the effect of a CO2 increase.

Also there are feedbacks in the warming when the climate is forced by a particular stimulus. For instance for the end of the ice ages, the stimulus was the Milankovitch cycle which increased solar radiation, and the feedbacks were the increased CO2, methane, water vapor coming from more evaporation, and reducing ice which changed the albedo of the planet. There is of course a lot of research done to evaluate the various feedbacks in each warming case. In the case of a CO2 forcing several of these feedbacks will occur. So you cannot say oh 30% more CO2 and 200% more CH4 is not much, it will be amplified by the various feedbacks. Initially the feedbacks will be relatively weak or even negative and will increase in intensity. For instance the forests will absorb a lot of carbon initially due to carbon fertilization, but after some point, the effect stops, and can even reverse. Another example is the melting of the permafrost which is not significant initially but becomes more and more important as temperature increases, causing an increase of CH4 release into the atmosphere. Other major feedbacks include water vapor and sea ice decrease which change the albedo.

Certainly if you in confined space have an intense fire fight the amount of gasses also cause trouble…no doubt about it.

Temperature since 1998 has not risen. Possibly due to less polluting cars.

You avoid the question, I am not talking about the paleo climates here, I am asking about now.

So you don’t think that the current GW is due to anthropogenic GHG emissions, is that right?

That is correct.

Let me explain a bit.

There are about one billion cars now….99% have internal combustion engines on them. Internal combustion engines produced energy divides into 70% heat and 30% power that runs the wheels.

It is like a murder scene….you see a smoking gun and a victim on the ground with a hole in his forehead.

Are you saying the gunsmoke killed the victim…or will you come up with a bulletproof explanations from the scene of what you saw ? Think that you are an CSI murder scene investigator just graduated and first day in a job. What will your boss say if you claim that the victim inhaled smoke eventhough you see the pool of blood on the floor ouzing from the victim’s forehead ?

Small amounts of CO2 cannot alone cause the GW I am pretty sure.

Oh because you think it is ‘Al Gore’ who dictates what the majority of climate scientists think?

No because it is wrong….CO2 emissions are just a sign of the climate change that no one seems to be denying.

yes, he got the original data that show 1930’s was the warmest climate on record,
but NASA tampered the original data.
Climate always fluctuate, always has always will, human emission or not,
notably his prediction on climate from 2000-2010 based on data that plot a predictable curve turned out to be right on spot,
-that is, it was going to be a cooler period,
while the doom & gloom cult predicted based on garbage in – garbage out computer models predicted a full degree increase

Well we can all agree that the curve mr Al Gore showed in his film ” The Unconvinient Truth ” did go a bit overboard.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jxi-OlkmxZ4

Many still belive the water will rise 24 meters in few years.

I think NASA is more reliable than a politician like Al Gore; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab6jV4VBWZE

dafuq is this conversation?
either talk about F-14 or hamburgers

Ok I just had delicious hamburger meal ( yesterday ) at Hesburger hamburger joint in Oulunsuu.

Palm trees in England is a bit surprising.

We have to be carefull with the models, they might be too optimistic. As I said, it turned out that the models that had been used to predict arctic sea ice decline were completely wrong, as well as the models used to describe the greenland ice sheet melting.

Palm trees grow in Scotland too; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plockton

[ATTACH=CONFIG]235721[/ATTACH]

Also the Pacific Ocean seems to warm up Juneau nicely. At the same time in the same latitude Magadan Russia the weather is -6 C; http://www.accuweather.com/en/ru/magadan/289119/weather-forecast/289119

Due to global thermohaline circulation; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8589512.stm