|
|
Post by buildreps on Jul 14, 2016 8:58:32 GMT
What still fascinates me how anyone can be so ignorant to claim that CO2 causes climate change?
The data from the ice cores show the following facts:
1) The temperature highs and lows are running average about 2,000 years ahead of CO2. The conclusion any (smart) scientist would draw is that CO2 is a function of temperature. What do you need to twist this around? A very complicated feed forward mechanism that is called the Greenhouse effect.
2) When CO2 is high, dust concentrations are low, and vice versa.
Stupid answers are already given enough by climate worshippers. Please come up with an intelligent explanation for these obvious facts. Who wants to try?
|
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jul 14, 2016 9:28:22 GMT
I've pondered if warmer temps increase the biomass which ups co2 through respiration...
Insects alone emit more CO2 then human industry..
But then this theory can't readily account for a 2000 year lag.....
|
|
|
|
Post by buildreps on Jul 15, 2016 13:50:25 GMT
It's not just a problem. It is a colossal problem when you want to hold CO2 responsible for climate warming.
Even more tragic is the fact that everyone has access to this knowledge.
A hint: Cold water holds more CO2 than warm water, and CO2 is a function of temperature.
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jul 15, 2016 14:12:50 GMT
It's not just a problem. It is a colossal problem when you want to hold CO2 responsible for climate warming. Even more tragic is the fact that everyone has access to this knowledge. A hint: Cold water holds more CO2 than warm water, and CO2 is a function of temperature. Henry's Law almost certainly the reason for rising atmospheric CO2. If Theo (and others) are right then as SSTs drop the percentage of CO2 could start dropping and that will cause some grief for the doom mongers. |
|
|
|
Post by buildreps on Jul 15, 2016 17:24:58 GMT
It's not just a problem. It is a colossal problem when you want to hold CO2 responsible for climate warming. Even more tragic is the fact that everyone has access to this knowledge. A hint: Cold water holds more CO2 than warm water, and CO2 is a function of temperature. Henry's Law almost certainly the reason for rising atmospheric CO2. If Theo (and others) are right then as SSTs drop the percentage of CO2 could start dropping and that will cause some grief for the doom mongers. That explains partially the technical work out of the process. It does not explain it in terms of cause and effect. Why did the temperature of the water rise or fall so significantly? CO2 responds to these changes. |
|
fred
New Member
Posts: 48
|
Post by fred on Jul 15, 2016 18:03:54 GMT
Now you've gone and done it. Its taken 20 odd years to finally get the science settled and you want to start it all off again...........only joking!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jul 15, 2016 22:48:38 GMT
Now you've gone and done it. Its taken 20 odd years to finally get the science settled and you want to start it all off again...........only joking!!!!!!! I make it closer to thirty years, Fred, and the rumblings were present well before the IPCC was set up in 1988. The IPCC was not tasked to see if there was AGW they were tasked to highlight the risks of AGW. They were operating under a foregone conclusion in 1988. Quote from www.ipccfacts.org/history.html: PS: Welcome Buildreps. Hope you like it here ..... |
|
|
|
Post by buildreps on Jul 17, 2016 14:51:09 GMT
Now you've gone and done it. Its taken 20 odd years to finally get the science settled and you want to start it all off again...........only joking!!!!!!! I make it closer to thirty years, Fred, and the rumblings were present well before the IPCC was set up in 1988. The IPCC was not tasked to see if there was AGW they were tasked to highlight the risks of AGW. They were operating under a foregone conclusion in 1988. Quote from www.ipccfacts.org/history.html: PS: Welcome Buildreps. Hope you like it here ..... Thanks, it's all right here. What about the problem of CO2 being a function of temperature? That is still not solved... |
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jul 17, 2016 15:57:19 GMT
This is a short, but rather good explanation of the oceans' role in controlling(?) atmospheric CO2. I haven't yet found where it addresses the issue of drivers for oceanic temperature change in any detail, but we may guess at various directions this is heading. "The point of all this is that temperature is driving CO2, not the other way around." "We have good measurements of atmospheric CO2 only since 1958. Before that time our measurements were at the mercy of whatever ice does to captured CO2. We have good global measurements of temperature only from 1979, the beginning of the satellite era. This means that all of our measurement periods are shorter than the natural cycles. We have hints only from surface and ship measurements that go back 120 years, that some of the natural cycles are ~60 years long. We are presently at a convergence and peak of several of those natural cycles. There are suggestions that we are past the peak of some longer solar cycles. I use the words “hints” and “suggestions” because of the large errors, lack of global coverage, and wishful thinking adjustments to these measurements. There are two possibilities. If CO2 drives temperature, then temperatures should continue to climb. If it doesn’t, then temperatures will fall, then, shortly, CO2 will fall also. Nature is in the process of demonstrating which is which. We can just watch." notrickszone.com/2013/10/08/carbon-dioxide-and-the-ocean-temperature-is-driving-co2-and-not-vice-versa/#sthash.SXaS9rSO.dpbsBased on this scientific thesis, the countries of NW Europe might argue that they deserve compensation for the upcoming costs associated with a colder climate associated with a new negative AMO ... as these colder waters will absorb increasing amounts of CO2, thus saving the populations of the developing world from the dire consequences associated with rising CO2 (as certified by the UN). "We will suffer so others may survive". Donations are expected.  Fair is fair. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 17, 2016 16:17:33 GMT
The oceans are a main carbon sink. Oceans warm via SW radiation. CO2 radiation plays a very limited roll in ocean temps.
Ocean circulation is "somewhat" understood. Ocean circulation is a dominant climate driver. That much we do know.
Isotopes show if CO2 levels are the result of burning carbon to produce food and fiber.
Current CO2 levels are not harmful.
The science linking CO2 to resulting temperature increases is not robust. Those whose income depends on CO2 science will tell u it is, but reality clearly shows it is NOT.
The idea that higher CO2 levels are detrimental to life is driven by monies.
|
|
|
|
Post by buildreps on Jul 20, 2016 17:47:46 GMT
The oceans are a main carbon sink. Oceans warm via SW radiation. CO2 radiation plays a very limited roll in ocean temps. Ocean circulation is "somewhat" understood. Ocean circulation is a dominant climate driver. That much we do know. Isotopes show if CO2 levels are the result of burning carbon to produce food and fiber. Current CO2 levels are not harmful. The science linking CO2 to resulting temperature increases is not robust. Those whose income depends on CO2 science will tell u it is, but reality clearly shows it is NOT. The idea that higher CO2 levels are detrimental to life is driven by monies. I agree with you that (changing) ocean circulations are the dominant climate driver. CO2 is released or absorbed by changing circulation, that's why we see a clear relation between temperature and CO2. Since CO2 levels lag behind on temperatures it is the function of it and not the cause. Simple math. It's a pity that so many people are stuck in these muddy waters of debility. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 20, 2016 18:04:45 GMT
The oceans are a main carbon sink. Oceans warm via SW radiation. CO2 radiation plays a very limited roll in ocean temps. Ocean circulation is "somewhat" understood. Ocean circulation is a dominant climate driver. That much we do know. Isotopes show if CO2 levels are the result of burning carbon to produce food and fiber. Current CO2 levels are not harmful. The science linking CO2 to resulting temperature increases is not robust. Those whose income depends on CO2 science will tell u it is, but reality clearly shows it is NOT. The idea that higher CO2 levels are detrimental to life is driven by monies. I agree with you that (changing) ocean circulations are the dominant climate driver. CO2 is released or absorbed by changing circulation, that's why we see a clear relation between temperature and CO2. Since CO2 levels lag behind on temperatures it is the function of it and not the cause. Simple math. It's a pity that so many people are stuck in these muddy waters of debility. I agree. Paleo data is pretty obvious as to CO2s roll in temperature. It has to play some sort of part, but I can't, as of yet, find evidence that the levels DRIVE the temperature as some would like us to believe. |
|
Fair is fair. 