You said we increased levels by 40%. I wonder how high the snow piles would be without our influence. Take out 40% of the CO2 and the earth would be a big ice -ball.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Climate Change... its the sun... again.
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
This headline illustrates the depravity of those who jumped onto the CO2 band wagon with far too little data. Naturally then don't want to admit they were hopelessly wrong. As their hypotheses became increasingly under fire from the climate science community they redefined AGW due to CO2 as "Climate Change" -- a nebulous banner no one can disagree with. Sadly, all of their models have proved to be useless, as feedback in the natural world is negative. The models, however, at least the ones predicting catastrophic warming, require positive feedback!
James Hansen and his congregation never stopped to realize that if CO2 were a significant greenhouse gas, and there were positive feedback, none of us would be here. Our progenitors would have long ago been fried to a crisp. There were times in the Earth's distant past when CO2 was many times what it is today!
Fortunately for us, CO2 is now much lower than in the past. It is a minor component of the atmosphere, but still adequate to sustain plant life. On balance, if one considers both its heat shielding and heat trapping properties, CO2 has only very weak heat trapping properties compared to that of water -- the Earth's temperature moderator. Carbon dioxide is so weak as a greenhouse gas that the affect on temperature of the increase in its mole fraction occurring since the late Nineteenth Century is too small, according to calculation, to be observed. Only when we lump CO2's heat trapping ability with that of all the other more powerful non-condenseing greenhouse gases should we be able to see, perhaps, a small temperature increase. We can calculate, ignoring any negative feedback, that the increase should be very roughly about 0.1 degree. The Earth responds to attempts to warm its surface with negative, not positive, feedback.
It may be that man is affecting climate, but in any case it is not via CO2 emissions. We are wasting our time and money trying to curtail CO2 emissions. We should instead focus on decreasing pollution of the oceans, deforestation, and thermal pollution of the atmosphere. Population control is arguably the single most important issue if our concern is preservation of the biosphere. We should transition to cleaner energy sources, but for reasons other than CO2 emission.
Intermingling scientific issues with political correctness and capitalism has resulted in a can of worms. On one side you have the fossil fuel industry that, for the wrong reason, is on the right side. On another side, you have the carbon credit traders, the politicians and the public. They are, for the wrong reasons, nearly all on the wrong side . On the other hand, the atmospheric physicists, the meteorologists, and the climate experts are, by definition, collectively on the right side, and for the right reasons. And then there is the media who will take an experimentally insignificant result and make a Gee Whiz headline out of it to sell advertising.
James Hansen and his congregation never stopped to realize that if CO2 were a significant greenhouse gas, and there were positive feedback, none of us would be here. Our progenitors would have long ago been fried to a crisp. There were times in the Earth's distant past when CO2 was many times what it is today!
Fortunately for us, CO2 is now much lower than in the past. It is a minor component of the atmosphere, but still adequate to sustain plant life. On balance, if one considers both its heat shielding and heat trapping properties, CO2 has only very weak heat trapping properties compared to that of water -- the Earth's temperature moderator. Carbon dioxide is so weak as a greenhouse gas that the affect on temperature of the increase in its mole fraction occurring since the late Nineteenth Century is too small, according to calculation, to be observed. Only when we lump CO2's heat trapping ability with that of all the other more powerful non-condenseing greenhouse gases should we be able to see, perhaps, a small temperature increase. We can calculate, ignoring any negative feedback, that the increase should be very roughly about 0.1 degree. The Earth responds to attempts to warm its surface with negative, not positive, feedback.
It may be that man is affecting climate, but in any case it is not via CO2 emissions. We are wasting our time and money trying to curtail CO2 emissions. We should instead focus on decreasing pollution of the oceans, deforestation, and thermal pollution of the atmosphere. Population control is arguably the single most important issue if our concern is preservation of the biosphere. We should transition to cleaner energy sources, but for reasons other than CO2 emission.
Intermingling scientific issues with political correctness and capitalism has resulted in a can of worms. On one side you have the fossil fuel industry that, for the wrong reason, is on the right side. On another side, you have the carbon credit traders, the politicians and the public. They are, for the wrong reasons, nearly all on the wrong side . On the other hand, the atmospheric physicists, the meteorologists, and the climate experts are, by definition, collectively on the right side, and for the right reasons. And then there is the media who will take an experimentally insignificant result and make a Gee Whiz headline out of it to sell advertising.
You said we increased levels by 40%. I wonder how high the snow piles would be without our influence. Take out 40% of the CO2 and the earth would be a big ice -ball.
Holy shit you're an idiot.
This headline illustrates the depravity of those who jumped onto the CO2 band wagon with far too little data. Naturally then don't want to admit they were hopelessly wrong. As their hypotheses became increasingly under fire from the climate science community they redefined AGW due to CO2 as "Climate Change" -- a nebulous banner no one can disagree with. Sadly, all of their models have proved to be useless, as feedback in the natural world is negative. The models, however, at least the ones predicting catastrophic warming, require positive feedback!
James Hansen and his congregation never stopped to realize that if CO2 were a significant greenhouse gas, and there were positive feedback, none of us would be here. Our progenitors would have long ago been fried to a crisp. There were times in the Earth's distant past when CO2 was many times what it is today!
Fortunately for us, CO2 is now much lower than in the past. It is a minor component of the atmosphere, but still adequate to sustain plant life. On balance, if one considers both its heat shielding and heat trapping properties, CO2 has only very weak heat trapping properties compared to that of water -- the Earth's temperature moderator. Carbon dioxide is so weak as a greenhouse gas that the affect on temperature of the increase in its mole fraction occurring since the late Nineteenth Century is too small, according to calculation, to be observed. Only when we lump CO2's heat trapping ability with that of all the other more powerful non-condenseing greenhouse gases should we be able to see, perhaps, a small temperature increase. We can calculate, ignoring any negative feedback, that the increase should be very roughly about 0.1 degree. The Earth responds to attempts to warm its surface with negative, not positive, feedback.
It may be that man is affecting climate, but in any case it is not via CO2 emissions. We are wasting our time and money trying to curtail CO2 emissions. We should instead focus on decreasing pollution of the oceans, deforestation, and thermal pollution of the atmosphere. Population control is arguably the single most important issue if our concern is preservation of the biosphere. We should transition to cleaner energy sources, but for reasons other than CO2 emission.
Intermingling scientific issues with political correctness and capitalism has resulted in a can of worms. On one side you have the fossil fuel industry that, for the wrong reason, is on the right side. On another side, you have the carbon credit traders, the politicians and the public. They are, for the wrong reasons, nearly all on the wrong side . On the other hand, the atmospheric physicists, the meteorologists, and the climate experts are, by definition, collectively on the right side, and for the right reasons. And then there is the media who will take an experimentally insignificant result and make a Gee Whiz headline out of it to sell advertising.
So then CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas. Hmmm. You should publish your findings and become rich and famous.
Holy shit you're an idiot.
No that's you, and proof that your theory is flawed.
No that's you, and proof that your theory is flawed.
No, your brain is flawed. Again, if you don't know what you're talking about just shut up. It would quiet the entire right wing. CO2 level does not immediately change the temps. Feedback effects take thousands of years to work. There is a lag. Current CO2 levels will be changing the climate thousands of years from now.
ROTFLMAO, Then how does current CO2 effect your precious hockey stick if it takes thousands of years.No, your brain is flawed. Again, if you don't know what you're talking about just shut up. It would quiet the entire right wing. CO2 level does not immediately change the temps. Feedback effects take thousands of years to work. There is a lag. Current CO2 levels will be changing the climate thousands of years from now.
You're the one who hasn't a clue.
Piezoe said...
On the other hand, the atmospheric physicists, the meteorologists, and the climate experts are, by definition, collectively on the right side, and for the right reasons.
Yes, this is true. And over 97% of them agree. And then we have bloviating bullshitters like you spewing complete crap on the internet. Lying through your teeth.
The sad thing is that idiot righties will believe you and not the experts. Or common sense for that matter.
On the other hand, the atmospheric physicists, the meteorologists, and the climate experts are, by definition, collectively on the right side, and for the right reasons.
Yes, this is true. And over 97% of them agree. And then we have bloviating bullshitters like you spewing complete crap on the internet. Lying through your teeth.
The sad thing is that idiot righties will believe you and not the experts. Or common sense for that matter.
ROTFLMAO, Then how does current CO2 effect your precious hockey stick if it takes thousands of years.
You're the one who hasn't a clue.
Are you TRYING to be stupid? You're doing a good job if so.
There are of course immediate effects AND those that take thousands of years.
Are you really this stupid? Do you even know how greenhouse gasses work?
Piezoe said..
James Hansen and his congregation never stopped to realize that if CO2 were a significant greenhouse gas, and there were positive feedback, none of us would be here. Our progenitors would have long ago been fried to a crisp. There were times in the Earth's distant past when CO2 was many times what it is today!
Actually, they did realize that at some point in the Malinkovitch Cycle solar decreases enough to swing the feedbacks the other way so the runaway is limited. They and anyone who knows a little climate science knows this.
You, on the other hand have just proved once again that you are either a very good liar or ignorant about basic climate science principles. You are offensively deceptive, wrong and just plain corrupt.
James Hansen and his congregation never stopped to realize that if CO2 were a significant greenhouse gas, and there were positive feedback, none of us would be here. Our progenitors would have long ago been fried to a crisp. There were times in the Earth's distant past when CO2 was many times what it is today!
Actually, they did realize that at some point in the Malinkovitch Cycle solar decreases enough to swing the feedbacks the other way so the runaway is limited. They and anyone who knows a little climate science knows this.
You, on the other hand have just proved once again that you are either a very good liar or ignorant about basic climate science principles. You are offensively deceptive, wrong and just plain corrupt.