Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

@Ionus,

How does Carbon Dioxide poisoning kill a human?

@parados,

You are a lot of fun when you try to be important . How much CO2 will be required for it to kill humans ? Until then, it is not a poison as you need it to breathe properly .

0 Replies

Another in a long line of ionus's misdirections and nitpicking. It's not because it's a "pretend poison" or whatever his phrase is, that we're concerned about it, but because enough of it in the atmosphere changes the climate, and because the weay we lived is based on the climate we have. Change that and it gets very expensive. Change rainfall and snowfall patterns (which it will) and you force changes in agriculture (not to mention continued existence--if your water supply dips below that needed for the population somewhere, you die). Half the world's population lives within 50 miles of a coast--flood a percentage of that, and you can disrupt tens or jundreds of millions of lives. Those are some of the problems, ionus, not some "pretend poison". What kind of bait-and-switch are you trying to pull now.

And incidentally, Parados is right. Enough CO2 can kill you, and it is hardly unprecedented, tho it takes rather special circumstances.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

http://www.biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_is_Actually_Increasing.html
SOLAR IRRADIANCE TREND 1985 THRU 2007
Cal. Year AD Int. of SI (W/m^2)
1985 .................................1365.65
1986 .................................1365.65
1987 .................................1365.79
1988 .................................1366.09
1989 .................................1366.66
1990 .................................1366.56
1991 .................................1366.45
1992 .................................1366.31
1993 .................................1366.04
1994 .................................1365.81
1995 .................................1365.71
1996 .................................1365.62
1997 .................................1365.75
1998 .................................1366.11
1999 .................................1366.39
2000 .................................1366.67 = peak
2001 .................................1366.40
2002 .................................1366.37
2003 .................................1366.07
2004 .................................1365.91
2005 .................................1365.81
2006 .................................1365.72
2007 .................................1365.66

0 Replies

Where're the post 2007 figures, ican? To repeat, as even your loopy source biocabinet will tell you, solar output is compared by looking at the solar minimums, which are the low points in the nominally 11 year (tho the exact length varies a bit) solar cycle. The last solar minimum occurred in 2010. It showed that solar output has declined since we have been able to monitor it directly, when we got satellites up to measure it in the late 70s. In fact that puts it just about where it was a century ago. You have the awkward fact to deal with that temperature is increasing but solar irradiance is decreasing.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

http://www.biocab.org/TSI_Positive_Trend.jpg

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
TEMPERATURE TRENDS
1985 0.019 -0.145 -0.027 -0.053 -0.008 -0.057 -0.056 0.015 -0.042 -0.010 -0.103 0.007 -0.038
1985 87 87 87 85 84 83 86 85 84 85 85 88
1986 0.115 0.082 0.048 0.038 0.018 0.044 -0.007 -0.007 0.014 0.045 -0.044 0.010 0.030
1986 88 88 87 87 84 84 84 82 84 85 85 87
1987 0.118 0.267 0.020 0.069 0.135 0.122 0.255 0.220 0.256 0.174 0.188 0.326 0.179
1987 88 89 87 85 84 84 85 86 84 84 85 88
1988 0.348 0.201 0.257 0.241 0.179 0.207 0.164 0.158 0.158 0.124 0.018 0.104 0.180
1988 88 90 87 86 83 84 83 85 84 84 84 85
1989 -0.002 0.094 0.080 0.081 0.051 0.067 0.163 0.174 0.135 0.145 0.052 0.188 0.102
1989 87 88 87 86 84 83 83 82 83 84 84 85
1990 0.198 0.245 0.467 0.303 0.242 0.235 0.208 0.226 0.166 0.284 0.285 0.196 0.255
1990 84 86 84 84 84 82 81 83 81 82 82 83
1991 0.229 0.283 0.176 0.317 0.254 0.287 0.292 0.240 0.182 0.135 0.077 0.079 0.213
1991 82 83 83 81 80 81 81 82 80 80 81 81
1992 0.282 0.251 0.208 0.120 0.110 0.108 -0.021 -0.017 -0.093 -0.080 -0.119 -0.007 0.062
1992 84 83 83 80 81 79 78 80 80 80 82 82
1993 0.217 0.166 0.209 0.104 0.153 0.131 0.080 0.060 0.018 0.061 -0.032 0.103 0.106
1993 83 83 83 82 78 79 79 80 79 79 80 82
1994 0.157 -0.090 0.181 0.173 0.244 0.213 0.152 0.171 0.158 0.238 0.247 0.217 0.172
1994 83 82 82 80 79 78 78 80 80 81 81 81
1995 0.359 0.468 0.293 0.230 0.171 0.288 0.299 0.317 0.206 0.244 0.276 0.151 0.275
1995 82 82 83 82 81 80 82 82 82 81 82 82
1996 0.065 0.254 0.134 0.095 0.167 0.148 0.182 0.185 0.090 0.083 0.072 0.170 0.137
1996 83 83 83 81 80 80 80 80 81 80 80 82
1997 0.150 0.251 0.265 0.198 0.241 0.379 0.372 0.411 0.459 0.496 0.468 0.533 0.352
1997 82 83 82 81 81 80 80 81 80 79 80 81
1998 0.492 0.756 0.548 0.647 0.596 0.606 0.671 0.647 0.393 0.420 0.351 0.444 0.548
1998 81 82 81 79 80 79 79 80 78 79 79 80
1999 0.370 0.552 0.294 0.315 0.233 0.263 0.270 0.236 0.267 0.228 0.210 0.327 0.297
1999 80 80 80 79 78 78 78 80 79 80 80 81
2000 0.206 0.361 0.331 0.450 0.241 0.234 0.255 0.339 0.320 0.194 0.150 0.164 0.271
2000 82 82 80 79 78 78 77 79 77 79 78 80
2001 0.324 0.286 0.487 0.430 0.390 0.413 0.453 0.506 0.404 0.378 0.506 0.321 0.408
2001 79 80 80 79 77 78 79 80 79 79 79 80
2002 0.598 0.611 0.609 0.445 0.443 0.474 0.479 0.427 0.412 0.358 0.393 0.328 0.465
2002 80 81 81 79 79 78 78 80 78 79 82 80
2003 0.525 0.441 0.425 0.417 0.437 0.442 0.455 0.525 0.520 0.566 0.428 0.523 0.475
2003 80 81 81 80 79 79 80 80 80 79 80 82
2004 0.504 0.571 0.510 0.494 0.323 0.347 0.369 0.416 0.446 0.478 0.526 0.376 0.447
2004 81 82 81 79 79 79 79 80 79 79 79 81
2005 0.461 0.380 0.499 0.534 0.481 0.512 0.536 0.509 0.513 0.508 0.483 0.370 0.482
2005 81 81 80 78 79 79 80 82 81 80 80 81
2006 0.319 0.448 0.380 0.370 0.338 0.438 0.444 0.493 0.422 0.480 0.445 0.523 0.425
2006 81 81 82 80 79 80 81 81 82 82 80 82
2007 0.610 0.509 0.438 0.472 0.373 0.384 0.407 0.364 0.412 0.367 0.269 0.215 0.402
2007 81 81 81 80 79 80 81 82 82 81 81 82
2008 0.053 0.192 0.449 0.271 0.278 0.308 0.417 0.395 0.376 0.443 0.393 0.327 0.325
2008 81 83 83 82 81 82 82 83 82 82 82 82
2009 0.387 0.374 0.374 0.417 0.407 0.508 0.515 0.544 0.473 0.442 0.448 0.427 0.443
2009 83 83 83 80 81 81 81 84 82 82 83 83
2010 0.489 0.481 0.583 0.571 0.516 0.542 0.544 0.487 0.397 0.402 0.444 0.267 0.477
2010 82 83 83 83 82 83 84 84 83 82 81 83
2011 0.206 0.264 0.318 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.263
2011 82 81 80

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png

TREND IN ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE DENSITY

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

It is a fact that during the specific 90 year period, 1910 to 2000, CO2 ATMOSPHERIC DENSITY increased, SOLAR IRRADIANCE increased, and ANNUAL AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE increased.

It is also a fact that during the specific 10 year period, 2000 to 2010, CO2 ATMOSPHERIC DENSITY increased, SOLAR IRRADIANCE decreased, and ANNUAL AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE decreased.

These facts logically imply, SOLAR IRRADIANCE increases and decreases are PROBABLY the major causes of ANNUAL AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE increases and decreases, and CO2 ATMOSPHERIC DENSITY increases are likely to be minor causes, if not negligible causes, of ANNUAL AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE increases and decreases.

0 Replies

Since some like to look at temperatures in central England: this April was the warmest April here for over 350 years, since 1659.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

misdirections and nitpicking

??

Good Grief ! Have you read even ONE of parados posts ?

Quote:

Enough CO2 can kill you

Enough oxygen can kill you . Will we be taking action against oxygen because like CO2 it is a poison ?

So CO2 produces warming, not the other way around, we must believe now before it is too late even though it cant be proven, we must trust the governments of the world to spend many billions despite their track record of not being able to balance a budget, and this is to prevent damage in the climate (a self correcting system) and the economy (a self correcting system)......yeah, good luck with that .

0 Replies

ican says, in great big letters in his original post.

Quote:

@ican711nm,
It is also a fact that during the specific 10 year period, 2000 to 2010, CO2 ATMOSPHERIC DENSITY increased, SOLAR IRRADIANCE decreased, and ANNUAL AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE decreased

There is one major problem with this statement, ican IT IS FALSE.

During the specific ten year period 2000-2010, global annual average land and ocean temperature INCREASED.
Anomalies from the mean temperature baseline period 1951-1980:
2000 o.33
2010 0.63
In words, the upward deviation of temperature from the baseline average was nearly twice as great in 2010 than it was in 2000. In still other words, 2010 was WARMER than 2000. You are WRONG.
Since CO2 concentration INCREASED over the specific time period you selected, and TEMPERATURE increased over the specific time period you selected, and SOLAR IRRADIANCE DECREASED over the specific time period you selected, your own loopy method of analysis says SOLAR IRRADIANCE CANNOT HAVE BEEN A MAJOR CAUSE OF TEMPERATURE CHANGE.

As a matter of fact, temperatures have been pretty steadily rising since the 1990s, i.e. temperature anomalies get farther and farther above the b aseline mean. To claim they've been dropping is SIMPLY NOT TRUE.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

1 Reply

ionus says:

Quote:

Good Grief ! Have you read even ONE of parados posts ?

Yes, I have, hundreds ofr them, over the years. I've also read hundreds of yours. That's why I describe you that way and not Parados.

The point of that post was that you were, once again, misdirecting with that "pretend poison" bit. Poisoning is not the action that anyone says CO2 is doing. It's your attempt to make it seem like science is saying something it's not. That's just another right wing meme run amok.

If you think CO2 doesn't produce warming, you're arguing against basic physical principles known for over a hundred years. Every year we are releasing back into the atmosphere a significant portion of the carbon the (self-stabilizing to an extent but not in the time frame we're forcing on it) natural system sequestered over millions of years. There is no indication it can cope with our overloading it, or will do so in a time scale less than thousands of years. If there were, CO2 would not be rising linearly (now apparently somewhat more than linearly).

And if you know something that has more resources and more ability than the governments of the world to deal with the effects of rising global temperatures, I invite you to tell us all what they are. In fact, tell it to the world. At the moment, those are what we have to work with.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

No, the point was being made that there are real poisons affecting life on this planet . You mentioned one of them . Previously parados has tried to convince us that CO2 was a poison . No doubt you read that post yourself as you have read hundreds of his posts . But still you say

Quote:

Poisoning is not the action that anyone says CO2 is doing.

Fine . I agree it isnt a poison but it is the action that has been stated in this forum previously by the GW lobby .

You are the one who pointed out unrelated ecological matters that are of concern . I asked you to prioritise and you waffled .

0 Replies

It may be AN action that has been stated. It is by no means THE action. There have been any number of those. You might want to look at the possible results if a bunch of the clathrates sequestered return to the atmosphere before you rule it out, though. And the whole notion of priorities is a red herring, too. we do 'em both. The actions needed for one are very different than those for the other and are not competing. I see no need to say do this rather than that. Do them both. On the other hand, quite a number of things that would mitigate global warming are the same things that would help produce energy independence from other country's oil resources and declining oil stocks, which has been a long-time goal, over both Republican and Democratic administrations, and it never ceases to amaze me that the Republicans don't realize how interests run parallel on that.

And to repeat, I was not the one that brought up the "unrelated" environmental concerns. That was okie, with his Van Jones posting. I was reponding to his diversion.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

And the whole notion of priorities is a red herring, too.

So there are no differences of opinion within the green movement as to whether we should save the whale or the rainforest....they just want governments to do what every greenie in the world tells them to do ...will that work ? Will we all be involved because it sounds very labour intensive....

Quote:

quite a number of things that would mitigate global warming are the same things that would help produce energy independence from other country's oil resources and declining oil stocks,

I agree, but the mechanism of GW is not the way to do that .

0 Replies

ionus said:

Quote:

So there are no differences of opinion within the green movement as to whether we should save the whale or the rainforest

See, ionus? You brought it down to an either/or yourself. Save them both.

"Mechanism of GW". Not GW, that's obvious. What "mechanism"? Who cares what rubric it's under? If it's something we should be doing, do it.

1 Reply

And while you're busy denying things, ionus,take a look at the latest research on melting ice caps and glaciers, which says we're likely to have a meter rise, rather than a half meter, in sea level over the next hundred years. If you live near a coast, as I do, you realize that this is not something that someone fifty years down the road suddenly looks up and says, "Oops, the water's a half meter higher, better do something about it". It's something you're continually spending money on, building that seawall just a little higher, and just a little more, and just a little more, or new levees or protecting your harbor a bit more, dumping some more stone, whatever. Do some economic research. It's a continuing very expensive process. And that's gotta be done, come hell or high water (hell's not certain, high water is).

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-world/20110503/EU.Arctic.Climate.Change/

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Its only either/or because I cant be stuffed listing all the things greenies want to do.....you are just being obtuse .

Quote:

If it's something we should be doing, do it.

Does it come with that label on it somewhere or will you be walking around with a label maker in one hand ?

You are avoiding the question....how do you greenie radicals prioritise what you should save....clearly we cant save everything at the same time or is flow charting another area you lack knowledge in ? Because next I want to tackle accounting....a project this big should already have a long list of what to do and when, including how much it is going to cost . You want to save everything ? How ?

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

You are aware there is another Ice Age coming, it is just a question of when.....what we have to decide is how close we are to the middle point in between glacial advances, in other words the warmest point . It also has to be decided IF CO2 is causing or following warming . IF CO2 is causing warming, and I dont see there is enough evidence for that, then what is the best option ? Cutting CO2 is blatantly obvious, but is it the best solution ?

Quote:

It's a continuing very expensive process.

So is building housing and buildings that only last 60 years, but everyone seems happy with that option . I dont live on the coast, so why should my money be spent to save you from something I dont think exists ?

If we don't determine if the CO2 is in fact causing the warming before we start, then any natural cooling will be highlighted as being due to the money spent and if it continues to warm they will say imagine what it would have been like if we didn't spend the money...so we have to decide now .

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know