|
Post by Ratty on Dec 19, 2008 10:43:40 GMT
No apology needed. In the words of Sergeant Schulltz: "I know nothing."
Because I'm well past my sixtieth birthday, I have seen lots of hysterical causes pushed in my time. For example: Butter is bad for you, eat margarine. Don't discipline your kids, it will damage them mentally. Buy a new computer to avoid the Y2K bug. The Great Barrier Reef is dying because < list coral-killing things here >. Oil price per barrel will hit $US200.00
I really didn't know about AGW but was prepared to go along with the flow until I heard David Bellamy issue his Two Words Challenge: "Ice Age". He said that those two words should make you stop and think.
I did.
Thank you for all your contributions that keep me thinking. That's what makes me return to this forum .....
The problem is .... how do we make the politicians take notice? Do they want to take notice? (Taxing is their game, remember.)
I have corresponded with the three major political parties here in Australia and the response is the same from all, almost as though they all had the same public relations firm crafting the replies.
A glimmer of hope here in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia is that one radio station is using the words "global warming" and "bunkum" in the same sentence and inviting qualified AGW sceptics to state their views.
Ratty
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Dec 19, 2008 21:37:29 GMT
I'm past my sixtieth as well, and have seen a lot. One memory sticks in my mind- being that of an oil executive stating to our university class in 1970 that the reason for the then ever increasing prices of oil was that fact that there was a maximum 30 years oil, discovered and undiscovered, remaining in the world. Of course, the middle east countries played right along by severely reducing oil supply in the early 70's.
|
|
okgal
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by okgal on Dec 20, 2008 3:11:56 GMT
No apology needed. In the words of Sergeant Schulltz: "I know nothing." Because I'm well past my sixtieth birthday, I have seen lots of hysterical causes pushed in my time. For example: Butter is bad for you, eat margarine. Don't discipline your kids, it will damage them mentally. Buy a new computer to avoid the Y2K bug. The Great Barrier Reef is dying because < list coral-killing things here >. Oil price per barrel will hit $US200.00 I really didn't know about AGW but was prepared to go along with the flow until I heard David Bellamy issue his Two Words Challenge: "Ice Age". He said that those two words should make you stop and think. I did. Thank you for all your contributions that keep me thinking. That's what makes me return to this forum ..... The problem is .... how do we make the politicians take notice? Do they want to take notice? (Taxing is their game, remember.) I have corresponded with the three major political parties here in Australia and the response is the same from all, almost as though they all had the same public relations firm crafting the replies. A glimmer of hope here in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia is that one radio station is using the words "global warming" and "bunkum" in the same sentence and inviting qualified AGW sceptics to state their views. Ratty Politicians see global warming as a money making, public controlling scheme, and they want the public to believe that the sky falling.
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Dec 21, 2008 15:14:46 GMT
Global Cooling? Where? When? You might better state that it is just a little bit less ridiculously warm. Temperatures haven't risen much since 1998, maybe even have dropped a little, but they are still very high. 1998 was an extreme El Nino year, with temperatures much higher than can be expected due to CO2 and other anthropogenic greenhouse gasses. Other natural variability may account for this. Keep in mind that the IPCC predicts average temperatures to rise SLOWLY during the next century. And that natural year to year or even decade to decade variations can be significant too. That this year is a bit cooler than the previous extremely warm years was expected, partly due to la Nina, a great volcanic eruption and likely also a bit due to lower solar activity. I've read (and understood, I am an atmospheric and (paleo) climate scientist and have a solid background in physics and mathematics) the complete IPCC AR4 WG1 document and discussed it with many other scientists and students. (It is free for the public to read: ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html) This document contains solid physics although many details are quite uncertain, but also stated as uncertain, using different levels of uncertainty. It doesn't contain any wild stories you usually hear in the media. Before participating in the global warming debate you should have studied this document before stating "global warming is nonsense". I have also read many articles and websites which reject global warming. I do not want to believe just what somebody says, and I do not want global warming to happen. I want to hear both sides of the story. Also I do not believe that governments primarily use global warming to raise taxes and gain control of the population. It will cost governments a lot of money trying to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gasses. It is also bad for their economies (at the moment, not likely in the future), and thus for their competition in the world economy. Governments have other, much more efficient ways to raise taxes or gain control, if that would be their primary goal. I have not seen any scientifically sound argument which rejects the global warming theory. Even Dr Landscheidt often uses false arguments (e.g. he calculates the maximum difference in solar constant between solar minimum and maximum over 7 years, and then uses a general circulation model to see what effect this would have on global temperature. Likely this is the new equilibrium temperature obtained if the increase in solar constant would increase that amount indefinitely. There are already 2 major errors in the assumptions, 1: maximum difference between solar constant min and solar max in seven years is not an average value over this seven years. Seven years if not enough to reach a new equilibrium temperature on earth.) Nearly every time (deliberate?) errors like these can be found in their publications and articles concerning global warming, or it is very difficult to verify their data and how they come to conclusions (that is BAD science, guys!). There is a solid physical basis showing: humans are causing the increase in CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses). CO2 together with other greenhouse gasses increase the amount of energy in the atmospheric system. This changes the temperature of the earth's surface, but how much is not precisely known. Globally it will get warmer, locally it may even get cooler or a lot hotter. Also there is a strong correlation between CO2 and the earth's temperature over the last million years. CO2 and temperatures are coupled, which means if you increase temperature you will increase CO2, but if you increase CO2 this will also increase temperature. But... this doesn't say that there are no other factors besides humans who can have an influence on the climate. The main problem is: how large are these factors, and, often forgotten, how long do these factors influence the earth's climate? It is clear that the sun is the major drive of the earth's climate. Just turn of the sun and imagine what would happen. The sun, together with major geological effects like the shifting of the continents drive the long term (millions of years) climate. Shorter term climate effects happen with the changes of the earth's rotation around the sun, which have a period of hundreds of thousands of years (ice ages). The main discussion of recent years is how "short" periods of changes in solar activity may effect the climate. Single solar cycles are way too short and the differences too little to have any major climate contribution. Maunder or Dalton type minima might have an effect on global temperatures, but how much is very much uncertain. It is known that solar variation has an effect on cloudiness on earth, and that this could influence the temperature on earth. More clouds may lead to cooling or warming dependent on the altitude (temperature!) of the clouds, although most studies show a slight cooling. Also there is a very slight difference between the total energy reaching earth from the sun during solar minima (so also Dalton/maunder type minima) and solar maxima. So the sun likely also has some (small) effect on the short term variation of the earth's climate. But this does not prove global warming does not exist! Temperatures have been showing increased rising in a time when the solar activity has been declining, so it is likely that solar activity is at least not the only factor determining short term climate variability! So, if the Dalton or near maunder type minimum is to come in the next decades the temperature might drop a bit or stay constant. It will be very interesting for both climate researchers and astrophysicists how much this change will be, and how much this will deviate from what the GCMs predict. This will give us more information on how large short term solar variations will be. (Astrophysicists and Climatologists should work together to create a better model which also includes known short term solar variation. Although I don't exactly know how well these variations can be predicted) So if the temperature drops, we can throw AGW overboard? I don't think this is a very good idea. It is likely that after a Maunder/Dalton type minimum the sun will become more active again. Together with high CO2 levels this could lead to a rapid increase in global temperatures. Another thing to consider is that current coal based economies emit other elements which can be very bad for our environment, our health, and that of our children. Maybe we should find something better, but -of course- not at all costs!
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Dec 21, 2008 16:32:40 GMT
aj1983 writes "http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html) This document contains solid physics" Whew! a whole defence of AGW. Where to start in reply. The above quote is about AR4. There are, of course, the other 3 assessments. They all have one major problem. There are basically three pieces of experimental data with respect to AGW. 1. CO2 abosrbs IR in the laboratory. 2. CO2 levels rose at the end of the 20th century. 3. Global temperatures rose at the end of the 20th century as well. Just about everything else, in support of AGW, is based on calculations. For example, radiative forcing as a measure of greenhouse effectiveness, can NEVER be measured, by definition. The GCMs, which calculate climate sensitivity, have not been validated. Without any hard, measured, independently replicated experimental data, I find it difficult to agree that AR4 has ANY solid physcis in it at all.
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Dec 21, 2008 19:57:36 GMT
I do not agree that everything is based on calculations only . Have you actually read the complete document? It contains very many measurements, also of chemical constituents of the atmosphere. However, I do agree that the temperature effect of a certain forcing on earth cannot be measured directly. The system is way to complex to do so directly. This is why many models are used and ensembles. This is normal practice in many complex fields of physics though, and also there they come up with results and predictions. (A good example is solar physics...). GMC's are verified trying to reconstruct the near past and current climate. They are capable of doing this. This is not a proof of the model being correct, I agree on that too. The models are built on physical principles though, but also this does not prove that they are correct as many detailed processes are not very well understood. This is why I was careful not to state climate sensitivity in the list of things that are well known. How would you validate a such a complex model? You cannot build the earth in a lab. But can you build the solar system in a lab? How then can you say anything about astrophysics or ecosystems which cannot be reproduced in a lab and in which nearly all variables are dependent on each other? Can you say something about global cooling due to the solar activity if you assume you can't say anything about climate sensitivity to a certain forcing? You can apply statistics, and say that there might be a correlation, but this proves only that there might be a correlation, no causes and effects. I haven't even seen a convincing research in which has been shown that there is a strong correlation between solar activity and global temperatures. I've done experiments in both fields (astrophysics, physics and meteorology), and they are done in exactly identical ways.
What field of research are you working in?
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Dec 21, 2008 20:45:21 GMT
If you are interested in pursuing this discussion, let us take it off this board. My email address is bf906@ncf.ca.
|
|
|
Post by fedoughty on Dec 21, 2008 21:18:35 GMT
I agree with jimcripwell @11:32. However, I think I would go further and suggest that aj1983 may have allowed his political leanings to affect his scientific objectivity, assuming his credentials are as stated.
I am a professional geophysicist with a strong background in mathematics and paleoclimatology. I, too, have studied the subject of AGW, because I refuse to accept anyone's statements concerning AGW (pro or con) without deriving/verifying the science and looking at the raw data myself. I think we all can agree that arguments on both sides of the debate (which is NOT over, BTW), often rely upon assumptions that have not been completely validated. I have also seen numerous logical and mathematical errors committed on both sides. Hopefully, this very interesting solar cycle we are about to enter into will help to shed light on the subject, and help resolve some of the issues that are still in doubt.
For the benefit of aj1983, I will point out only two (of many) problems with the theory of GHG-driven GW:
(1). aj1983 states,
"Also there is a strong correlation between CO2 and the earth's temperature over the last million years. CO2 and temperatures are coupled, which means if you increase temperature you will increase CO2, but if you increase CO2 this will also increase temperature".
Partially true. Using oxygen isotope ratios as a proxy for temperature and entrained atmospheric samples from deep ice cores, we have learned that CO2 tracks temperature with an average lag of about 800 years, likely due to the thermal inertia of the oceans. It is NOT true that an increase in CO2 will increase average temperature. If aj1983's statement were correct, the earth would eventually broil as a result of runaway heating due to positive feedback: CO2 increases temperature, which increases CO2, which increases temperature, which... ! The proof that CO2 does not significantly control temperature can be seen at the CO2 and temperature peaks and troughs within the ice core data we are all familiar with (even Al Gore showed the data in his fantasy film). At each peak in temperature (interglacial periods), CO2 continues to increase, probably from oceanic out-gassing, but atmospheric temperature turns down, ignoring the fictitious "CO2 forcing" signal that is the fantasy of the pro-AGW crowd. At the troughs, CO2 concentration continues to decrease for about 800 years after the temperature trend reverses and begins to climb. Where is the influence of CO2 concentration upon temperature? Temperature clearly leads CO2; there is NO evidence (no data) that it can ever be the other way around.
(2). CO2 is capable of absorbing infrared photons in only three narrow spectral wavelength bands, centered at 2.7, 4.3, and 15 microns, because of the limited number of asymmetric vibrational modes possible in the CO2 molecule. Even with spectral line broadening due to atmospheric pressure, these three wavelength bands comprise a very tiny portion of the black body radiation emitted by the earth. Therefore, very little of the infrared energy may be retarded by CO2 along it's journey back into space.
In addition, water vapor has significant effects at two of the CO2 absorption lines. It is well-known and acknowledged by all, that water vapor is a much stronger GHG than CO2. Water vapor fully absorbs the 2.7 micron wavelengths, leaving nothing for CO2 to accomplish at that frequency. Water vapor also exhibits a significant effect at the 15 micron wavelength. At 4.3 microns, however, water vapor is transparent, leaving CO2 all alone to do it's thing. How can the pro-AGW contingent expect us to believe that increased atmospheric CO2 will produce massive climatic effects, when it is only capable of retarding the radiation of a single narrow bandwidth centered at 4.3 microns, and a portion of another (15 microns) out of the earth's entire black body radiation bandwidth?
The above represent only two of the many arguments against CO2 as a forcing agent for the global climate. There are many others, such as the saturation argument (wavelengths at which CO2 is active are already fully absorbed, so additional CO2 will have negligible affect).
I believe that the present global warming hysteria is primarily a symptom of a serious lack of science education globally. Many otherwise intelligent people have bought the snake oil, trusting the promoters of AGW and assuming they have solid science on their side, without analyzing the data for themselves. Some of the key AGW promoters (those with technical backgrounds who should know better) actually seem to be selling a political agenda. If more of the public were capable of their own technical analysis of the issue, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Dec 21, 2008 23:20:47 GMT
Political leanings? Oh no, I will forgive you because you don't know me. I have had difficulties accepting the AGW theory myself just because most people do, and have had several discussions with professors here at the IMAU (Netherlands) using arguments of the non AGW camp and of myself to see how they would react. They can usually very clearly invalidate these arguments.
fedoughty states:
I agree with jimcripwell @11:32. However, I think I would go further and suggest that aj1983 may have allowed his political leanings to affect his scientific objectivity, assuming his credentials are as stated.
"I am a professional geophysicist with a strong background in mathematics and paleoclimatology. I, too, have studied the subject of AGW, because I refuse to accept anyone's statements concerning AGW (pro or con) without deriving/verifying the science and looking at the raw data myself. I think we all can agree that arguments on both sides of the debate (which is NOT over, BTW), often rely upon assumptions that have not been completely validated. I have also seen numerous logical and mathematical errors committed on both sides. Hopefully, this very interesting solar cycle we are about to enter into will help to shed light on the subject, and help resolve some of the issues that are still in doubt.
For the benefit of aj1983, I will point out only two (of many) problems with the theory of GHG-driven GW:
(1). aj1983 states,
"Also there is a strong correlation between CO2 and the earth's temperature over the last million years. CO2 and temperatures are coupled, which means if you increase temperature you will increase CO2, but if you increase CO2 this will also increase temperature".
Partially true. Using oxygen isotope ratios as a proxy for temperature and entrained atmospheric samples from deep ice cores, we have learned that CO2 tracks temperature with an average lag of about 800 years, likely due to the thermal inertia of the oceans. It is NOT true that an increase in CO2 will increase average temperature. If aj1983's statement were correct, the earth would eventually broil as a result of runaway heating due to positive feedback: CO2 increases temperature, which increases CO2, which increases temperature, which... !
Yes, I'm familiar with that theory, ice cores and climate are one of our largest research group here at our university. The 800 years lag is considered very uncertain though. There are also theories that could explain a possible lag, but I cannot recall them clearly enough. Anyway, let's assume that this lag is true. The temperature increases. Why? At those time scales it is due to differences in the rotation of the earth around the sun, and tilting of the axis etc. The Milankovic cycles. Or maybe also the inertia of the earth under ice caps itself, which changes the climate due to albedo changes. Anyway, these external forcing mechanisms or inertial periods increase (or decrease) the temperature on earth. This releases CO2 from the ocean, which in term leads to higher temperatures. This process is limited though, and is normally counteracted by minima in the Milankovic cycle and/or inertia periods of the ice caps. It is just a positive feedback, many more positive feedbacks exist, as well as negative feedbacks. So temperatures don't have to boil. CO2 and global temperatures are nonlinearly coupled.
The proof that CO2 does not significantly control temperature can be seen at the CO2 and temperature peaks and troughs within the ice core data we are all familiar with (even Al Gore showed the data in his fantasy film). At each peak in temperature (interglacial periods), CO2 continues to increase, probably from oceanic out-gassing, but atmospheric temperature turns down, ignoring the fictitious "CO2 forcing" signal that is the fantasy of the pro-AGW crowd. At the troughs, CO2 concentration continues to decrease for about 800 years after the temperature trend reverses and begins to climb. Where is the influence of CO2 concentration upon temperature? Temperature clearly leads CO2; there is NO evidence (no data) that it can ever be the other way around.
Yes, I completely agree, but you forget that at that time and at those timescales it is the sun or ice-earth inertial period which drives the temperature up, and so, also the CO2 concentration. If the solar energy goes down, then also the temperatures goes down and CO2 goes down. This lagging CO2 could indeed be because of the temperature inertia of the oceans. But, today is a different story. We do not have a large change in external (solar) forcing on there short time scales. If there would be any, the rate of temperature rise would decrease in the last 30 years because the solar activity has decreased since then, but has -maybe until now, but that is way to early to say- been increasing at an increasingly rate. Now we are increasing the CO2 content in the atmosphere (AR4WG1 clearly describes how we can see that the increase in CO2 is mostly anthropogenic, not from the oceans (oxygen and nitrogen trends compared to the CO2 trend)). With the coupling of CO2 and temperature this will lead to an increase in temperature. But I think you do not believe CO2 and temperature are coupled?
(2). CO2 is capable of absorbing infrared photons in only three narrow spectral wavelength bands, centered at 2.7, 4.3, and 15 microns, because of the limited number of asymmetric vibrational modes possible in the CO2 molecule. Even with spectral line broadening due to atmospheric pressure, these three wavelength bands comprise a very tiny portion of the black body radiation emitted by the earth. Therefore, very little of the infrared energy may be retarded by CO2 along it's journey back into space.
I am also familiar with this, but the absorbing properties of CO2 have been researched extensively and is modeled using line by line spectrum models. They together with lab experiments have shown that CO2 does absorb energy, and how much.
In addition, water vapor has significant effects at two of the CO2 absorption lines. It is well-known and acknowledged by all, that water vapor is a much stronger GHG than CO2. Water vapor fully absorbs the 2.7 micron wavelengths, leaving nothing for CO2 to accomplish at that frequency. Water vapor also exhibits a significant effect at the 15 micron wavelength. At 4.3 microns, however, water vapor is transparent, leaving CO2 all alone to do it's thing. How can the pro-AGW contingent expect us to believe that increased atmospheric CO2 will produce massive climatic effects, when it is only capable of retarding the radiation of a single narrow bandwidth centered at 4.3 microns, and a portion of another (15 microns) out of the earth's entire black body radiation bandwidth?
I suggest you read the articles describing the research on CO2 absorption, and see the results. You may believe what you want. CO2 forcing is not very large, but it remains in the atmosphere for a long time which results in a "large" temperature effect (if you consider 3C to be large). This is exactly the difference with water vapor. An increase in water vapor is nearly instantly removed from the atmosphere, that's why it does not exert a direct forcing on the climate. It can be a feedback though. (Note the difference between forcings and feedbacks which is often quite difficult!)
The above represent only two of the many arguments against CO2 as a forcing agent for the global climate. There are many others, such as the saturation argument (wavelengths at which CO2 is active are already fully absorbed, so additional CO2 will have negligible affect).
Lab research and models have shown this is not true.
I believe that the present global warming hysteria is primarily a symptom of a serious lack of science education globally. Many otherwise intelligent people have bought the snake oil, trusting the promoters of AGW and assuming they have solid science on their side, without analyzing the data for themselves. Some of the key AGW promoters (those with technical backgrounds who should know better) actually seem to be selling a political agenda. If more of the public were capable of their own technical analysis of the issue, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I am well educated, have a solid physical background and do not have any political agenda. Discussion in research is good. I'm not working in climate research, I am doing radar meteorology and lightning formation at the moment. Dynamic meteorology has greatly been reduced as a research topic here, I think mostly because everybody is interested in the climate and more money goes there. So I'd rather see the AGW theory to be not true! Also I want to go ice skating again, it has been a very long time ago. (This year will be better...) All these arguments proving AGW theory not true have been undermined by myself, with or without the arguments of the AGW camp, which I must say are very convincing, even though still many uncertainties exist.
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Dec 22, 2008 7:45:17 GMT
Wow. That red font is tough to read.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Dec 22, 2008 8:59:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Dec 22, 2008 10:00:11 GMT
It definitely is, and I won't use it again.
Although, red is the color of love and warmth! ;D
|
|
|
Post by donmartin on Dec 22, 2008 21:32:34 GMT
No "convincing research" showing correlation between solar activity and global temperatures. So, if there was no sun, there would be no effect in respect of global temperature? Do we live in the age of the big lie? Madoff, WMD's, peak oil, global warming? Why is "research" necessary for what may be so obvious? For the past 60 million or so years the world has been in an ice age with increasingly short interregnums. We are in an ice age. We are cooling. More rapidly now than since the Younge Dryas. Our species (sapiens sapiens) arrived before the height of the current ice age and flourished in the Holocene which has deteriorated during the past 5,000 years. Our only concern now might be whether global warming is sufficient to contribute to sustenance of our species.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Dec 22, 2008 21:46:08 GMT
No "convincing research" showing correlation between solar activity and global temperatures. So, if there was no sun, there would be no effect in respect of global temperature? Do we live in the age of the big lie? Madoff, WMD's, peak oil, global warming? Why is "research" necessary for what may be so obvious? For the past 60 million or so years the world has been in an ice age with increasingly short interregnums. We are in an ice age. We are cooling. More rapidly now than since the Younge Dryas. Our species (sapiens sapiens) arrived before the height of the current ice age and flourished in the Holocene which has deteriorated during the past 5,000 years. Our only concern now might be whether global warming is sufficient to contribute to sustenance of our species. Noone is saying the sun doesn't warm the earth, just that if it's output doesn't change much over a number of decades then it cannot cause significant warming or cooling over those decades. And what is "We are in an ice age. We are cooling. More rapidly now than since the Younge Dryas."? Perhaps the last report on global temperature you read was in March from a certain blog?
|
|
|
Post by fedoughty on Dec 22, 2008 23:58:34 GMT
Political leanings? Oh no, I will forgive you because you don't know me. I have had difficulties accepting the AGW theory myself just because most people do, and have had several discussions with professors here at the IMAU (Netherlands) using arguments of the non AGW camp and of myself to see how they would react. They can usually very clearly invalidate these arguments. snip aj1983, I sincerely apologize if I came across as insulting. I genuinely did not intend to. No need to use that "aggressive" red pen in an attempt to harm my psyche as per ratty's link @ reply #70. (Just kidding, of course). It's true that the pro-AGW contingent has tried to argue against the points I made above, but has failed to convincingly shoot any of them down. Extreme complexity (which usually doesn't make any sense whatsoever) is inevitably invoked. For example, the roughly average 800-year lag in CO2 response to temperature that is observed in ice core data is usually argued in one of the following three ways: (1) Just because we do not observe atmospheric CO2 concentrations leading atmospheric temperature in the past does not mean CO2 cannot force global temperatures in the future (keep the faith, brother). (2) CO2 actually forces global temperatures as observed in the ice core record through positive feedback, but only on the slopes of the temperature time series where we cannot directly observe it. The reversals of the peaks and troughs are due to other factors, such as Milankovitch (not Milankovic) cycles. In other words, "It's there, but we just can't see it". (3, and the best of all) The ice core data is, after all, only a local measurement. Other forcing mechanisms, such as Milankovitch cycles, locally warm the ice core site (or continent). This then releases CO2 (locally) due to oceanic out-gassing, which is then distributed globally, forcing the entire earth to warm, causing additional CO2 out-gassing. This process continues, until another (more powerful) forcing mechanism reverses the trend. Really now.... Do we honestly need to add this level of complexity to a relatively simple (but not pure) cause and effect relationship? So to answer your question: Yes, atmospheric CO2 concentration and average global temperatures are coupled, but the coupling is predominantly one of cause (temperature) and effect (CO2 concentration). However, I do agree that humankind's industrial activities do tend to add ever so slightly to the atmospheric CO2 concentration, which produces a slightly beneficial effect, on average. Thank you for the discussion. There are many additional arguments I would like to present for the points I made in my reply #67 note, but I simply do not have the time. I'll conclude by stating that I firmly believe increasing atmospheric CO2 is a good thing for the earth and humankind. The earth is currently starved for atmospheric CO2, relative to the biosphere's most prolific periods, as seen in the geologic record. I try to maximize my carbon footprint whenever I can. If I could press a magic button and instantly double the current atmospheric concentration of CO2, I would be tempted to do so for the benefit of all life on earth (but probably would not, for fear of the law of unintended consequences). Fear the cold. The earth is near the end of the most recent interglacial period, and is on the cusp of another 100,000 year glaciation event (but I'm not saying it's imminent). I wish the AGW arguments for warming were true. Then, perhaps, it would be possible to forestall the coming ice by cooking rocks to release the CO2 that was trapped in carbonates that were laid down by the profusion of organisms that occurred when the earth was much richer in atmospheric CO2 than it is today.
|
|