Human-€induced climate change requires urgent action

[futurecurrents]

So who can tell me how much colder the earth would be without CO2 in the atmosphere?

 

[jem]

you don't science showing man made made co2 causes warming. If you did you would have a Nobel prize.

Is CO2 a greenhouse gas?

 

[futurecurrents]

Is CO2 a greenhouse gas and how much colder would the planet be without CO2? Until you can answer those things you cannot possibly understand AGW.

you don't science showing man made made co2 causes warming. If you did you would have a Nobel prize.

 

[jem]

you poor little agw nutter drone.
the world now knows you are full of shit and the science is all coming out against you.

is there a chance man made co2 is causing warming... yes.
is there a chance its causing cooling -- yes.

why? because science does not know.
hansens theory is not looking good.

Is CO2 a greenhouse gas and how much colder would the planet be without CO2? Until you can answer those things you cannot possibly understand AGW.

 

[jem]

so far the only science offered by the drones is a mythbusters experiment....
here was my response.

===
no wonder you were asking me if co2 was a greenhouse gas... you have no practical understanding of the theory.

so let me get this straight you are telling me that you have proven that man made co2 warms because CO2 directly warms the air now? I thought the greenhouse gas theory stated sunlight and (light bulb radiation) passed through co2 to the earth?

if anything... that study shows that co2 is not a blanket but a shield preventing some of the suns energy from getting past the atmosphere to the earth.[/quote]

 

[futurecurrents]

So jem, is CO2 a GHG? If it is, then man's raising of it's levels by 40% has to cause warming. It's that simple.

Amazing how you and pie seem to be having trouble with this very basic concept.

 

[futurecurrents]

So jerm, how much warmer does the earth's CO2 keep the earth's temperature?

 

[dbphoenix]

 

[piezoe]

What I've read -- and I'll be first to admit that I haven't read extensively since I don't think any of it is going to make any difference -- speaks of fifty years, a century, two centuries. Five years is most likely bupkus. Having gone through the sixties, I can understand the emotionalism surrounding this. As it turned out, little of that mattered. This does. But we are almost pathologically short-sighted.

So rather than get into a deep discussion about these weighty topics, I'll probably settle in with a grilled cheese sandwich and Life After People.

What I meant by the five more years was not that that would make much difference in terms of additional data, but that that should be enough time for arguments among the scientific community to resolve the inconsistencies between the latest data and what would be expected based on the Hansen hypothesis.
(In my earlier post I meant to say that if we don't do anything and keep burning fossil fuels like mad then I hope i'm right (not "wrong") about Hansen's hypothesis being wrong. Because if Hansen is right and we don't curtail our CO2 we could be in a heap of trouble. ) I looked up HAB theory, and read the Wiki article about it. Apparantly the originator of this idea of the Earth capsizing, more or less, was serious. Seems pretty silly now. Maybe we'll get a chance to find out if the poles melt. I like the cartoon!

 

[dbphoenix]

I looked up HAB theory, and read the Wiki article about it. Apparantly the originator of this idea of the Earth capsizing, more or less, were serious. Seems pretty silly now. Maybe we'll get a chance to find out if the poles melt.

Yes, he was, and his presentation was compelling, in the same way that Chariots of the Gods was compelling, though ultimately silly (though one never really knows). But the fiction novel The HAB Theory is fun. Beach reading.