0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pity. There is no data relating to any specific tests or experiments.
Ben,I am old man. ..
I am sorry you feel that way of me. I have resigned from the forum.
Yes, my idea was that if CO2 acts as a blanket, it might also act as a shield.
Yes, my idea was that if CO2 acts as a blanket, it might also act as a shield. But let me rather stay out of this discussion, because what O says is true. I am not qualified in this field and don't have the same access to information like you people do.
the warming effect CO2> cooling effect caused by CO2).
You're welcome.And in response to your question, noone blames CO2 for ALL the GCC (please stop calling it GW - it isn't). CO2 is PART of it, and is perhaps the most easily addressed. It is well established that CO2 is a GHG, yes? Increased GHGs increases retained energy, yes? CO2 has increased by 25% in the last few decades, yes? I'm not sure I see what the problem is. Yes, there are other influences on GCC, but (to use that awful phrase) CO2 provides the low-hanging fruit, and it is predicted through extensive modelling, that GCC in response to CO2 increases, is not linear due to feedback processes. By the time that it has reached 750 ppm, there is a roughly 50% likelihood of an increase in temperature of 6 or 7°C, which will have profound effects on the net carbon storage of forests, for example. They will no longer be sinks, but sources due to reductions in photosynthesis, reduced productivity and increased mortality. And if the forests go, not to put too fine a point on it, you're buggered. Completely. Because of CO2.
we blame the carbon emissions which results in the green house gas for global warmimg, without offering any physical evidence or proof. hence i dont really know that carbon dioxide is causing global warming!
My investigations have turned me into a total skeptic. I very much doubt whether carbon dioxide is to blame for global warming. It is not that I deny that global warming is happening. Read my final report on the other thread: How much is the increase in carbon dioxide every year?
Get a grip on your chicken-little roost already. Geeze. Warm is good, cold is bad
Get a grip on your chicken-little roost already. Geeze. Warm is good, cold is bad, and right now it looks possible we might need baby harp seal sweaters shortly. The weather is like the stock market. It varies. Right now it is getting cooler.
I'm afraid it's not that simple. With a warmer climate, sure, some places will become more fertile. Other areas however, will become deserts.
There's another aspect that people seem to ignore while saying "it will be better if things are warmer".Change isn't good.Farmers like to know what the weeather will be like and the currebnt state of affairs is that we are having weird weather.There is no question that CO2 levels have risen.Since most of the CO2 is made from "ancient" C sources it's fair to blame the use of fossil fuels. (You can, in effect, radiocarbon date the CO2).
There's no question that CO2 absorbs IR radiation.There's no way that you can avoid that leading to a greenhouse effect.There is, thereefore, at least some anthropogenic global warming and the weather is going nuts.If we want to eat we need stable weather.Perhaps we should try cutting back onCO2.
if you really want an example of cold is bad, get a load of this URL where collapse of Old Kingdom Egypt through draught famine is directly associated with sudden cooling that last one or two hundred years planet wide.
See Climate and the Collapse of Maya Civilization as an example:"evidence has mounted that unusual shifts in atmospheric patterns took place near the end of the Classic Maya period, lending credence to the notion that climate, and specifically drought, indeed played a hand in the decline of this ancient civilization."Note, this drought caused by increased global temperature.Have you got it now?
Your analysis that the fall of the Maya occurred during a warming period is absolutely incorrect, though.
Note, this drought caused by increased global temperature.
yor and bored - regarding sunspots, I refer you to the Maunder Minimum.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_MinimumAnd if you really want an example of cold is bad, get a load of this URL where colapse of Old Kingdom Egypt through draught famine is directly associated with sudden cooling that last one or two hundred years planet wide.
However unlikely and difficult to predict, imagine for the sake of argument that the sun does go through another Maunder Minimum over the next century. What effect would this have on Earth's climate? The difference in solar radiative forcing between Maunder Minimum levels and current solar activity is estimated between 0.17 W/m2 (Wang 2005) to 0.23 W/m2 (Krivova 2007).In contrast, the radiative forcing of CO2 since pre-industrial times is 1.66 W/m2 (IPCC AR4), far outstripping solar influence. And that's not including the extra CO2 to be added to the atmosphere in upcoming decades. In other words, the warming from CO2 dwarves any potential cooling even if the sun was to return to Maunder Minimum levels.
Madi - You wrote: "In contrast, the radiative forcing of CO2 since pre-industrial times is 1.66 W/m2 (IPCC AR4), far outstripping solar influence."If so, you need to account for all the climate change that has taken place prior to industrialization. Specifically, atmospheric CO2 is at a near low in all of planetary history right now. Yet we are in something of a climate optimum. I notice you cite the IPCC. This has about the same scientific content as your reference to Lord Attenbourogh and his breathless, yet supine, video clip cited earlier. Cue dramatic music, cue single, unchallenged climatologist, cue clueless Shakspearean Actor. Perhaps add forelorn Polar Bear on small iceberge.Pathetic....
The correspondence between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and globally averaged surface temperatures in the recent past suggests that this coupling may be of great antiquity. Here, I compare 490 published proxy records of CO2 spanning the Ordovician to Neogene with records of global cool events to evaluate the strength of the CO2-temperature coupling over the Phanerozoic (last 542my). For periods with sufficient CO2 coverage, all cool events are associated with CO2 levels below 1000 ppm. A CO2 threshold of below ~500 ppm is suggested for the initiation of widespread, continental glaciations, although this threshold was likely higher during the Paleozoic due to a lower solar luminosity at that time. Also, based on data from the Jurassic and Cretaceous, a CO2 threshold of below ~1000 ppm is proposed for the initiation of cool non-glacial conditions. A pervasive, tight correlation between CO2 and temperature is found both at coarse (10 my timescales) and fine resolutions up to the temporal limits of the data set (million-year timescales), indicating that CO2, operating in combination with many other factors such as solar luminosity and paleogeography, has imparted strong control over global temperatures for much of the Phanerozoic. © Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Global Highlights – August * The worldwide ocean surface temperature of 62.4 degrees F was the warmest on record for any August, and 1.03 degrees F above the 20th century average of 61.4 degrees F. * Separately, the global land surface temperature of 58.2 degrees F was 1.33 degrees F above the 20th century average of 56.9 degrees F, and ranked as the fourth warmest August on record. * Large portions of the world’s land mass observed warmer-than-average temperatures in August. The warmest departures occurred across Australia, Europe, parts of the Middle East, northwestern Africa, and southern South America. Both Australia and New Zealand had their warmest August since their records began. * The Southern Hemisphere average temperatures for land and ocean surface combined were the warmest on record for August.
I guess it's a matter of deffinition but I think muddling up the two Attenboroughs is pathetic.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenboroughhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_AttenboroughIf you can't tell the difference between a film producer/ actor and a anturalist then perhaps your other postings should be brought into question.Also I note thet you chose to belittle the IPCC as unscientific.I presume that your definition of unscientific is anything that doesn't agree with you.
completely disregarding someones opinion and belittling them because they made a mistake between David/Richard Attenborough (or even between 250 ml/mm for that matter) is the equivalent of deeming your posts invalid because you cant seem to spell the words deffinition (definition), thet (that), or anturalist (naturalist). *Everyone* makes mistakes.
I guess it's a matter of deffinition but I think muddling up the two Attenboroughs is pathetic.
How inapropriate for a science site- I prefer the facts to be correct.