'What can we do about global warming?'

  • Thread starter Thread starter SILVERNAME
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
steveandersen said:
I didn’t dispute it I merely said that it is immaterial to the argument
Click to expand...
I suspect that if you really felt the facts were immaterial to the argument you wouldn’t have bothered to challenge them as a “faulty interpretation.” These facts may be scientifically insufficient to either prove or disprove the CO2 theory of global warming but they are not irrelevant in convincing people of the validity of the theory … which, I suspect, is why you’ve taken the time to question them.

I was very explicit in my statement: over the last 600,000 years, temperature increases have preceded increases in CO2. The article you cite does not dispute that, they merely point out that in the more distant past (55 mya) there are cases where CO2 has increased before temperature. Given the multitude of factors contributing to both conditions that is not surprising. What is surprising to most people, and more significant for us, is that for the last 6000 centuries temperature increases have always preceded CO2 increases. I really don’t see how this fact can be irrelevant in understanding the relationship between temperature and CO2 - although I do understand it’s inconvenience for those who believe in AGW.

Ender
 
Al_Masetti said:
Alternatively, send ME a thousand dollars and I will plant a tree for you.

In addition, at no extra cost, I will send you a certificate saying that you have some carbon credits AND also that you are a Genuine Good Guy.

You will also receive a photograph of the tree being planted.

And a T-shirt stating that you are a Genuine Good Guy.

Allow 4 - 6 weeks for delivery.
Click to expand...
Ooooh, a t-shirt!? Where do I sign up!?
😃
 
Ender said:
… I really don’t see how this fact can be irrelevant in understanding the relationship between temperature and CO2 - although I do understand it’s inconvenience for those who believe in AGW.

Ender
Click to expand...
OK if you don’t see why it is irrelevant then let me try to explain:
  1. The effect of CO2 on atmospheric emissivity is a physical fact. It has nothing to do with historical observations or models.
  2. The effect of CO2 is strongest in the IR ranges at which the Earth radiates.
  3. The continuity equation can’t be violated. That energy must go somewhere.
  4. The article I cited indicates in those instances when temperature increase preceded elevated CO2 concentrations the lag was only for a few centuries while the subsequent warming related to CO2 concentration lasted for several millennia. i.e. even in the periods that you are discussing the CO2 related temperature domain was far larger than the non-CO2 portion. (This is important since it raises the possibility that we may have skipped the pre-CO2 stage and gone right to the well-demonstrated CO2 stage of temperature elevation.)
  5. The 6,000 centuries you mention are a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the lifespan of the planet (45,000,000 centuries) so why should it be weighted any differently?
 
steveandersen said:
  1. The effect of CO2 on atmospheric emissivity is a physical fact. It has nothing to do with historical observations or models.
Click to expand...
I’m sure the emissivity of CO2 can be measured in a laboratory but the extent to which that value controls the earth’s temperature is very much in doubt. There is certainly little doubt about how the “historical observation” would be presented if the time frames were reversed and CO2 increases preceded the rise in temperature.
  1. The continuity equation can’t be violated. That energy must go somewhere.
Click to expand...
Given that global temperatures have hardly moved since about 1999 while CO2 concentrations have continued to increase it would appear that there is more going on than your simple continuity equation explains.
  1. The article I cited indicates in those instances when temperature increase preceded elevated CO2 concentrations the lag was only for a few centuries while the subsequent warming related to CO2 concentration lasted for several millennia.
Click to expand...
The article accepted the fact that temperature increases appeared to cause increases in CO2 and then postulated that increased CO2 led to higher temperatures in a positive feedback loop. The first part is fact, the second is theory; we both understand the difference.
  1. The 6,000 centuries you mention are a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the lifespan of the planet (45,000,000 centuries) so why should it be weighted any differently?
Click to expand...
The physical properties of the earth in the last 600K years much more closely approximate the properties and processes of current times than do those when the earth was young.

Ender
 
I am in Pittsburgh—please… we need all the global warming we can get here-its darn cold here today.

Really-global warming is a farce, brought to renown by tree hugger liberals. I say cut down another tree and make something useful out of it!!! (then replant a new tree so we can cut that one down in the future.
 
I really hate to burst your balloon; however, we may actually be into global cooling (natural-style):

The cycle of the next cooling first emerged two years ago, and the trend is already clear from the data for 2006 and 2007. All predictions come from solar studies. Various commentators, such as at www.climatechangedebate.org showed a lot of graphs and linked to lots of studies by Svensmark, Alexander, Abdusamatov, etc.

The cooling will come from the Sun’s decreasing activity, as shown in all previous cycles in Earth’s history, when there were solar double minima (Maunder, Spoerer, Dalton, Wolff), following a Southern Hemisphere cooling. It will affect the entire world, but will be more severe in the NH. The prediction goes back to around 2000, when solar scientists calculated that a double solar minimum was coming around 2020-2030 (Landscheidt, Alexander, and many Russian astronomers and astrophysicists).

Historical records on the crop conditions seen during the Little Ice Age show us what we might get in the future when temperatures start to cool faster than now. We are on the top of the cycle, where variations are slow. But we will enter now in the downward slope and the cooling will increase its speed until the next 35 years cycle minimum. Some say the minimum will be around 2070 and the cooling would last about 70-90 years; others around 2090. But for sure around 2020 the cold we be quite noticeable and the crop line will move south in the NH and north (though in a lesser extent) in the SH due to the ocean influence.
 
What can I do about global warming?

Well if it ever gets warm enough in the winter down here, I can stop buying heavy winter clothing. I can then cut my carbon footprint by not using heavy winter jackets, gloves and hats.

By, the way I live in North Carolina and it is freezing down here!
 
Why are we not taking care of more pressing matters first? Bigfoot, Loch Ness, etc.
 
Folks interested in the on-going debate should visit:

www.climatechangedebate.org

And read the current and previous posts on a plethora of topics all of which are relevant to the issue of global warming.
 
Me, I’m old enough to remember the 70’s and all the alarmism about GLOBAL COOLING and a new ice age coming. Then som eof the same “scientists” preaching the ice age began preaching global warming.

The biggest issue I have with the concept of man-made global warming is that it really doesn’t make much sense. FOLLOW THE MONEY. The money funding studies of what might cause global warming other than human activity is almost nothing compared to the countless billions in grants to study the concept of man-made global warming.
Carbon isn’t much of a green house gas…the most plentiful green house gas is WATER…one of the most powerful is methane…carbon…hardly a blip when studied compared to water or methane…should we stop boiling water and farting?

I doubt any of us here are scientists…however…a level headed look at FACTS suggest the world was warming…and that 1998 was among the warmest…and that we are now headed toward a cooling period…and the thing driving this all is…the sun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top