parados wrote:
...
I included factors that the IPCC uses. Since the factors that you claim are NOT human induced can NOT account for all the warming that means that what is left can only come from human causes.
...
Since we add them together and they are significant then you have just admitted that humans are a significant contributor to warming.
Study my above post on your own with care or get counseling to help you study it with care:
Posted: Fri 08 Feb, 2008 5:24 pm Post: 3085776
okie wrote:I have never seen any proof that CO2 drives temperature instead of the other way around. I don't believe there is a consensus on this at all. In fact, this is the entire argument, is it not?
There is almost 150 years of science that shows that CO2 drives temperature. CO2 absorbs infrared. It heats up. The more CO2 the more infrared that is absorbed. It is simple to understand. Because you don't want to believe it doesn't make the science go away.
...
Parados, study my above post on your own with care or get counseling to help you study it with care:
Posted: Fri 08 Feb, 2008 5:24 pm Post: 3085776
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3085776#3085776
RUN THE NUMBERS, ICAN. You keep making an utterly nonsensical claiml, and I'm really REALLY getting tired of it
....
Go back to that whole dumb Boyle's-law-misinterpreted section, find the equations, and prove your contention, because the data show you're all wet (yes, I know it's a weak pun, or is it a metaphor?).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#In_the_oceans
Carbon in the Ocean
In the oceans
There is about 50 times as much carbon dissolved in the oceans in the form of CO2 and CO2 hydration products as exists in the atmosphere. The oceans act as an enormous carbon sink, having "absorbed about one-third of all human-generated CO2 emissions to date[22]." Generally, gas solubility decreases with water temperature. Accordingly carbon dioxide is released from ocean water into the atmosphere as ocean temperatures rise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink#Oceans
Carbon's ocean sink
Oceans
Oceans are natural CO2 sinks, and represent the largest active carbon sink on Earth. This role as a sink for CO2 is driven by two processes, the solubility pump and the biological pump.[6] The former is primarily a function of differential CO2 solubility in seawater and the thermohaline circulation, while the latter is the sum of a series of biological processes that transport carbon (in organic and inorganic forms) from the surface euphotic zone to the ocean's interior. A small fraction of the organic carbon transported by the biological pump to the seafloor is buried in anoxic conditions under sediments and ultimately forms fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas.
At the present time, approximately one third[7] of anthropogenic emissions are estimated to be entering the ocean. The solubility pump is the primary mechanism driving this, with the biological pump playing a negligible role. This stems from the limitation of the biological pump by ambient light and nutrients required by the phytoplankton that ultimately drive it. Total inorganic carbon is not believed to limit primary production in the oceans, so its increasing availability in the ocean does not directly affect production (the situation on land is different, since enhanced atmospheric levels of CO2 essentially "fertilize" land plant growth). However, ocean acidification by invading anthropogenic CO2 may affect the biological pump by negatively impacting calcifying organisms such as coccolithophores, foraminiferans and pteropods. Climate change may also affect the biological pump in the future by warming and stratifying the surface ocean, thus reducing the supply of limiting nutrients to surface waters.
.....Human sources, mostly but by no means entirely the burning of fossil fuels, have raised CO2 from about 280ppm to about 380 ppm, an increase of about a third, which is an increase of about a third in the number of molecules of that gas.
....
username wrote:.....Human sources, mostly but by no means entirely the burning of fossil fuels, have raised CO2 from about 280ppm to about 380 ppm, an increase of about a third, which is an increase of about a third in the number of molecules of that gas.
....
So what caused such high levels of CO2 in the past, username?
"There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.
The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming."
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
I'd like to thank you for your highlights ... ican ...
...
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/about/position/globalwarming.jsp
Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming
Where We Stand on the Issue
C. D. Idso and K. E. Idso
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is little doubt the air's CO2 concentration has risen significantly since the inception of the Industrial Revolution; and there are few who do not attribute the CO2 increase to the increase in humanity's use of fossil fuels. There is also little doubt the earth has warmed slightly over the same period; but there is no compelling reason to believe that the rise in temperature was caused by the rise in CO2. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that future increases in the air's CO2 content will produce any global warming; for there are numerous problems with the popular hypothesis that links the two phenomena.
A weak short-term correlation between CO2 and temperature proves nothing about causation. Proponents of the notion that increases in the air's CO2 content lead to global warming point to the past century's weak correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global air temperature as proof of their contention. However, they typically gloss over the fact that correlation does not imply causation, and that a hundred years is not enough time to establish the validity of such a relationship when it comes to earth's temperature history.
The observation that two things have risen together for a period of time says nothing about one trend being the cause of the other. To establish a causal relationship it must be demonstrated that the presumed cause precedes the presumed effect. Furthermore, this relationship should be demonstrable over several cycles of increases and decreases in both parameters. And even when these criteria are met, as in the case of solar/climate relationships, many people are unwilling to acknowledge that variations in the presumed cause truly produced the observed analogous variations in the presumed effect.
In thus considering the seven greatest temperature transitions of the past half-million years - three glacial terminations and four glacial inceptions - we note that increases and decreases in atmospheric CO2 concentration not only did not precede the changes in air temperature, they followed them, and by hundreds to thousands of years! There were also long periods of time when atmospheric CO2 remained unchanged, while air temperature dropped, as well as times when the air's CO2 content dropped, while air temperature remained unchanged or actually rose. Hence, the climate history of the past half-million years provides absolutely no evidence to suggest that the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 concentration will lead to significant global warming.
Strong negative climatic feedbacks prohibit catastrophic warming. Strong negative feedbacks play major roles in earth's climate system. If they did not, no life would exist on the planet, for some perturbation would long ago have sent the world careening into a state of cosmic cold or horrendous heat; and we know from the fossil record that neither of these extremes has ever occurred, even over billions of years, and in spite of a large increase in the luminosity of the sun throughout geologic time.
Consider, in this regard, the water vapor that would be added to the atmosphere by enhanced evaporation in a warmer world. The extra moisture would likely lead to the production of more and higher-water-content clouds, both of which consequences would tend to cool the planet by reflecting more solar radiation back to space.
A warmer world would also mean a warmer ocean, which would likely lead to an increase in the productivity of marine algae or phytoplankton. This phenomenon, in turn, would enhance the biotic production of certain sulfur-based substances that diffuse into the air, where they are oxidized and converted into particles that function as cloud condensation nuclei. The resulting increase in the number of cloud-forming particles would thus produce more and smaller cloud droplets, which are more reflective of incoming solar radiation; and this phenomenon would also tend to cool the planet.
All of these warming-induced cloud-related cooling effects are very powerful. It has been shown, for example, that the warming predicted to result from a doubling of the air's CO2 content may be totally countered by: (1) a mere 1% increase in the reflectivity of the planet, or (2) a 10% increase in the amount of the world's low-level clouds, or (3) a 15 to 20% reduction in the mean droplet radius of earth's boundary-layer clouds, or (4) a 20 to 25% increase in cloud liquid water content. In addition, it has been demonstrated that the warming-induced production of high-level clouds over the equatorial oceans almost totally nullifies that region's powerful water vapor greenhouse effect, which supplies much of the temperature increase in the CO2-induced global warming scenario.
Most of these important negative feedbacks are not adequately represented in state-of-the-art climate models. What is more, many related (and totally ignored!) phenomena are set in motion when the land surfaces of the globe warm. In response to the increase in temperature between 25°N latitude and the equator, for example, the soil-to-air flux of various sulfur gases rises by a factor of 25, as a consequence of warmth-induced increases in soil microbial activity; and this phenomenon can lead to the production of more cloud condensation nuclei just as biological processes over the sea do. Clearly, therefore, any number of combinations of these several negative feedbacks could easily thwart the impetus for warming provided by future increases in the air's CO2 content.
Growth-enhancing effects of CO2 create an impetus for cooling. Carbon dioxide is a powerful aerial fertilizer, directly enhancing the growth of almost all terrestrial plants and many aquatic plants as its atmospheric concentration rises. And just as increased algal productivity at sea increases the emission of sulfur gases to the atmosphere, ultimately leading to more and brighter clouds over the world's oceans, so too do CO2-induced increases in terrestrial plant productivity lead to enhanced emissions of various sulfur gases over land, where they likewise ultimately cool the planet. In addition, many non-sulfur-based biogenic materials of the terrestrial environment play major roles as water- and ice-nucleating aerosols; and the airborne presence of these materials should also be enhanced by rising levels of atmospheric CO2. Hence, it is possible that incorporation of this multifaceted CO2-induced cooling effect into the suite of equations that comprise the current generation of global climate models might actually tip the climatic scales in favor of global cooling in the face of continued growth of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
There is no evidence for warming-induced increases in extreme weather. Proponents of the CO2-induced global warming hypothesis often predict that extreme weather events such as droughts, floods, and hurricanes will become more numerous and/or extreme in a warmer world; however, there is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, many studies have revealed that the numbers and intensities of extreme weather events have remained relatively constant over the last century of modest global warming or have actually declined. Costs of damages from these phenomena, however, have risen dramatically; but this phenomenon has been demonstrated to be the result of evolving societal, demographic and economic factors.
Elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 are a boon to the biosphere. In lieu of global warming, a little of which would in all probability be good for the planet, where do the above considerations leave us? Simply with the biospheric benefits that come from the aerial fertilization effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment: enhanced plant growth, increased plant water use efficiency, greater food production for both people and animals, plus a host of other biological benefits too numerous to describe in this short statement.
And these benefits are not mere predictions. They are real. Already, in fact, they are evident in long-term tree-ring records, which reveal a history of increasing forest growth rates that have closely paralleled the progression of the Industrial Revolution. They can also be seen in the slow but inexorable spreading of woody plants into areas where only grasses grew before. In fact, the atmosphere itself bears witness to the increasing prowess of the entire biosphere in the yearly expanding amplitude of the its seasonal CO2 cycle. This oscillatory "breath of the biosphere" - its inhalation of CO2, produced by spring and summer terrestrial plant growth, and its exhalation of CO2, produced by fall and winter biomass decomposition - has been documented to be growing greater and greater each year in response to the ever-increasing growth stimulation provided by the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content.
Atmospheric CO2 enrichment brings growth and prosperity to man and nature alike. This, then, is what we truly believe will be the result of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content: a reinvigorated biosphere characteristic of those prior periods of earth's history when the air's CO2 concentration was much higher than it is today, coupled with a climate not much different from that of the present. Are we right? Only time will tell. But one thing is certain now: there is much more real-world evidence for the encouraging scenario we paint here than for the doom-and-gloom predictions of apocalypse that are preached by those who blindly follow the manifestly less-than-adequate prognostications of imperfect climate models.
Our policy prescription relative to anthropogenic CO2 emissions is thus to leave well enough alone and let nature and humanity take their inextricably intertwined course. All indications are that both will be well served by the ongoing rise in atmospheric CO2.
Supporting references. This brief was written in 1998. References to the voluminous scientific literature that supports the many factual statements of this position paper may be found on our website - www.co2science.org - which we update weekly.
There is little doubt the air's CO2 concentration has risen significantly since the inception of the Industrial Revolution; and there are few who do not attribute the CO2 increase to the increase in humanity's use of fossil fuels.
Okay folks, which do you prefer? Cooking? Or Freezing? Looks like it could go either way:
The Sun Also Sets
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY |
Thursday, February 07, 2008 4:20 PM PT
...
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175
... Interesting article. Too bad it isn't science.
....
Okay folks, which do you prefer? Cooking? Or Freezing? Looks like it could go either way:
parados wrote:... Interesting article. Too bad it isn't science.
....
Yes, professor.
Maybe you would like to read this, Parados, here is more evidence of global warming in Colorado. It is really hot out there.
http://www.chieftain.com/metro/1202575807/7
Here is an excerpt:
...."[/b]
Foxfyre wrote:Okay folks, which do you prefer? Cooking? Or Freezing? Looks like it could go either way:
If it begins to go colder, count on it Foxfyre, the chorus of impending doom will be just as loud, if not louder. The U.N. scientists will have discovered by then a fatal flaw in their models that will explain all of it, and instead of man causing warming, it will be man causing cooling, and the sky will fall if the United States Nations and the United States in particular does not act quickly. It is all so predictable.
okie wrote:parados wrote:... Interesting article. Too bad it isn't science.
....
Yes, professor.
Maybe you would like to read this, Parados, here is more evidence of global warming in Colorado. It is really hot out there.
http://www.chieftain.com/metro/1202575807/7
Here is an excerpt:
...."[/b]
What is your point okie? It's winter. Global warming doesn't change the tilt of the earth.
okie wrote:Foxfyre wrote:Okay folks, which do you prefer? Cooking? Or Freezing? Looks like it could go either way:
If it begins to go colder, count on it Foxfyre, the chorus of impending doom will be just as loud, if not louder. The U.N. scientists will have discovered by then a fatal flaw in their models that will explain all of it, and instead of man causing warming, it will be man causing cooling, and the sky will fall if the United States Nations and the United States in particular does not act quickly. It is all so predictable.
really okie? Do you know what the Maunder Minimum is?
