0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
For instance, we see 'Climate Change' has replaced the customary 'Global Warming' terminology. I sense editors hedging bets...
In addition, the public is increasingly aware there is not now nor has there ever been any sort of meaningful consensus on the topic.
I am interested in how this 'climate' consensus can be demonstated. Accordingly, we need to define our terms. First, who is qualified to be included in the sampled 'universe'?
Further, what percentage of agreement is needed to qualify as a consensus.
In general, I find the term 'consensus' to be a red flag of some sort of political agenda.
In parrallell I suspect a consensus of Weather Babes are fully despondent! For instance, in Galeleo's time there was a general consensus among clerics the sun revolved about the earth.
I also have a general predilection for warm anyway.
My general point is human civilization does better in warmer times such as The Roman Era and the Midieval Warming, and does less well when weather cools. Such as late Roman Times, the post Midieval Warming period [famine, plaque and general mischief) etc.
I specialize in showing todays climate is cooler then several times in historical times, and is also warmer then other historical times, while CO2 remained constant during those periods.
Karsten - You wrote: "I fear that in the USA people are getting distracted from the ecological crisis we are heading into. Too many people lost jobs. Many struggle to pay for bills they think need to be paid."Bills they THINK need to be paid? Here is what WILL happen whether or not these rednecks pay their bills, pay a Climate CO2 tax, and perhaps have their jobs exported to low cost, high polution coal burning societies."Unless China finds a way to clean up its coal plants and the thousands of factories that burn coal, pollution will soar both at home and abroad. The increase in global-warming gases from China's coal use will probably exceed that for all industrialized countries combined over the next 25 years, surpassing by five times the reduction in such emissions that the Kyoto Protocol seeks." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/business/worldbusiness/11chinacoal.html?pagewanted=all
Dr Howard says that over time, the ocean may be able to counteract acidity by dissolving accumulated shells of dead marine organisms on the ocean floor, thus raising ocean pH and its ability to take up CO2.But he says this will take a long time and come at the cost of living marine organisms."The buffering mechanisms in the ocean are quite slow compared to the rate at which we are putting fossil fuel carbon into the atmosphere and into the ocean.," he said.
“When CO2 levels in the atmosphere reach about 500 parts per million, you put calcification out of business in the oceans.”
New calculations made by marine chemists from the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI) suggest that low-oxygen "dead zones" in the ocean could expand significantly over the next century. These predictions are based on the fact that, as more and more carbon dioxide dissolves from the atmosphere into the ocean, marine animals will need more oxygen to survive.
I don't mind China poluting the place with CO2, (...)
"Unless China finds a way to clean up its coal plants and the thousands of factories that burn coal, pollution will soar both at home and abroad. The increase in global-warming gases from China's coal use will probably exceed that for all industrialized countries combined over the next 25 years, surpassing by five times the reduction in such emissions that the Kyoto Protocol seeks."
I don't mind China poluting the place with CO2, though sulfuric acid is another matter. The reason is I do not dive under my bed at the mention of CO2! Planetary life THRIVED at 3,000ppm! You need to cheer up, bucky. We are living in a rare and welcome Climate Optimum!
Humm - I wonder where the 3,000 PPM came from? There is NO reliable source for that statement, that's for sure.It helps to have the correct facts.And the uncertainty in the GEOCARB III and COPSE data (yellow area below) is enough to make these two methods meaningless as well. Thus, the only even partially reliable estimate of carbon dioxide levels throughout geologic history, with it's inherent flaws, barley reaches a 1,000 PPM during the Permian. This makes the Carboniferous sequestering arguments, as well as most ALL other arguments based on prehistoric CO2 levels, to be simply guesses, and balderdash in all reality.
Oh - and one other thing - "climate optimums" as described above - are times of vast species die-off.