Too much emphasis on carbon dioxide?
| Too much emphasis on carbon dioxide?05-01-2014 01:34 | |
| discgolfdave☆☆☆☆☆ (3) |
Evidence is pretty clear. There is a strong association between the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and atmospheric temperature. Many people take that data as the only evidence we need to support the theory of anthropogenic global warming, and an extremely expensive carbon cap. The problem is, an association between carbon dioxide and atmospheric temperatures does not establish causality. Does higher levels of carbon dioxide cause higher temperatures, or do higher temperatures cause higher levels of carbon dioxide? The answer to both of these questions appears to be "yes". So we have to dig deeper, and, more importantly, look at other determinants and the extent of the impact of these determinants on atmospheric warming/cooling. First, what do we know for sure? * Carbon dioxide concentrations in our atmosphere have increased from 0.028% to 0.039% during our industrial era. * Venus' atmosphere, long acknowledged to have a runaway greenhouse effect, has carbon dioxide concentrations of 96%. This is over 2,000 times the concentration of carbon dioxide on earth. * Earth's average temperature has increased by about 1.4 degrees F in the past 100 years. * During the Maunder Minimum, sunspot activity was greatly reduced. During one thirty-year period, there were only 50 sunspots recorded. * In recent times, 40,000 - 50,000 sunspots have been recorded during a thirty year period. (Improved observation techniques in modern times have some impact on these numbers, but we are confident that we experienced much greater sunspot activity in the recent past than during the Maunder Minimum.) * During the Maunder Minimum, earth experienced a Little Ice Age. The causality of this is clear. Decreased sunspot activity caused temperatures to plunge on earth. The plunging temperatures on earth did not cause decreased sunspot activity. * The sun spends up to a quarter of its time in a sunspot minimum. * Sunspot activity is now reducing again even though we should still be in a sunspot active 11 year cycle. * We are heading into a sunspot inactive 11 year cycle in the next several years. The next thirty years may be revealing. We may be able to tell if carbon dioxide (CO2) levels or sunspot activity are the determining factor for atmospheric temperatures, or if maybe something else entirely is the deciding factor. If temperatures continue to increase on earth despite decreasing sunspot activity, we have a serious global warming problem. This would likely reveal that CO2 levels drive earth's climate temperatures more than sunspot activity. If temperatures plunge, there will be many climate scientists left with egg on their faces. Personally, I have no axe to grind and don't profess to know what will happen. But with the facts stated above, I am guessing that temperatures will reduce in the near future. Unfortunately, that still may not be enough for us to determine the fate of climate temperatures. If both sunspot activity and CO2 levels impact atmospheric temperatures, we could see a cooling in the future during the upcoming sunspot minimum, and then when we return to a more normal level of sunspot activity the temperature of our planet could soar. There could also be other factors at play. Climate science is complicated. The fact that many climate scientists paint a simplified picture of our situation as being mainly a story of CO2 is worrisome to me. Even more worrisome is our current lack of willingness to entertain scenarios other than our current view of anthropogenic global warming. Personally, I think we know much less than we think we do. And it's that lack of knowledge and our unwillingness to maintain scientific objectivity that has me worried. I'm not a betting man, but if I had to put money on it I think our climate scientists will end up having egg on their faces. I would bet that any anthropogenic impacts on our climate are minor. It wouldn't surprise me if our discussion changes in the future to finding ways to increase CO2 in our atmosphere to ward off a future ice age. |
| 19-04-2014 19:10 | |
| ThoAbEl☆☆☆☆☆ (3) |
(Please see and share the attached document link for a rough introduction) Explanation for Climate change can be found in classical physics, from Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation. Climate Change occurs as a result of shift in center of mass of the earth and change in axial tilt of the earth. Center of mass of the earth can change due to many reasons like an earthquake, a volcanic eruption or due to many human activities. This changes the axial tilt (obliquity) of the earth, shifting the axis of rotation of the earth, changing the orientation of various regions of the earth's surface with respect to the sun, directly impacting climate change. These changes due to natural phenomena and human activity are almost unpredictable and hence the resulting climate changes too, become almost unpredictable. The human activities, which may result in shift of the center of mass of the earth and change in its axial tilt, directly affecting climate change are listed below. 1. Extraction of Fossil fuels from the earth's Crust. 2. Building of large dams 3.Massive Urbanization 4.Massive Deforestation 5.Construction of Skyscrapers 6.Massive mining of Metal/mineral ores Among many reasons, the main factor influencing the shift in center of mass of the earth is uncontrolled extraction of fossil fuels from the earth's crust. Apart from its direct impact, the continuous and uncontrolled extraction of fossil fuels disturbs the structural stability of the earth's crust. This includes disturbing the stability of tectonic plates and their movements, resulting in increased number of earth quakes and volcanic eruptions etc., resulting in further shift in center of mass and axial tilt. The possible implications are completely unpredictable because we have limited understanding and influence over the dynamics of the earth's crust and hence the unpredictable change in climate. As the massive extraction of fossil fuels increases rapidly, especially in the last 2 decades, climate change too, is becoming more intense and unpredictable. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B06T_hxDI77nM3lfNDJfSWxlTlk/edit?usp=sharing |
| 05-05-2014 05:37 | |
| Kano☆☆☆☆☆ (23) |
I agree with you I go with the sun being the major factor in our climate. CO2 does cause warming, it is generally agreed that a doubling of CO2 (probably by yr2050) will cause an increase in 3.7 watts per sq meter, which equates to 1 degree C, that I accept, the positive feedbacks that push it up to 3.5C are pure nonsense, you dont have to be a scientist to realise that these feedbacks would be created by any small warming (not just CO2) and so if they could happen they would've already happened. Personally I think one degree warmer would be nice. |
| 30-10-2015 16:19 | |
IBdaMann ★★★★★(14390) |
discgolfdave wrote: Evidence is pretty clear. There is a strong association between the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and atmospheric temperature. Nope. The Mauna Loa CO2 sensor data shows quite conclusively that there is no correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and atmospheric temperature. That should put the issue to bed. discgolfdave wrote: * Venus' atmosphere, long acknowledged to have a runaway greenhouse effect, has carbon dioxide concentrations of 96%. There is no such thing as a "greenhouse effect" in science, much less a "runaway" one. Venus' temperature is a function of its proximity to the sun, of solar output and of the amount of atmosphere (which generates surface pressures 90 times that of earth's atmosphere at sea level). discgolfdave wrote: Climate science is complicated. "Climate Science" isn't complicated so much as it is non-existent. This is why you have never seen any "Climate Science." We have meteorology. "Climate" is not defined in science. "Climate" is just weather. When someone says "Climate is not weather!" s/he simply means "Climate is just not the weather you are talking about at the moment." . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 30-10-2015 16:58 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390) |
Kano wrote: CO2 does cause warming, it is generally agreed that a doubling of CO2 (probably by yr2050) will cause an increase in 3.7 watts per sq meter, which equates to 1 degree C, Your use of the passive voice is a dishonest way to avoid saying that no one of any importance agrees to it. What you are describing is a complete violation of the laws of physics. However, I think the board would find it very entertaining if you were to attempt to explain how CO2 (and/or any other atmospheric gas for that matter) manufactures thermal energy. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 30-10-2015 17:46 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14390) |
ThoAbEl wrote: Explanation for Climate change can be found in classical physics, from Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation. Excuse me! What?! Would you mind elaborating? "Climate" is not mentioned anywhere in any of Newton's laws. ThoAbEl wrote: Climate Change occurs as a result of shift in center of mass of the earth ... Say what? ThoAbEl wrote: Center of mass of the earth can change due to many reasons like an earthquake, a volcanic eruption or due to many human activities. Playing poker is a human activity. Does it cause "climate change" or does it cause a shift in the center of mass of the earth? ThoAbEl wrote: [shifting the axis of rotation of the earth] due to natural phenomena and human activity are almost unpredictable and hence the resulting climate changes too, become almost unpredictable. What human activities change the earth's tilt? Oh, wait! You're going to tell me. ThoAbEl wrote: The human activities, which may result in shift of the center of mass of the earth and change in its axial tilt, directly affecting climate change are listed below. You actually believe this? ThoAbEl wrote: ...the main factor influencing the shift in center of mass of the earth is uncontrolled extraction of fossil fuels from the earth's crust. Of course. Fossil fuels are to blame. Rather than listing six items above, why didn't you just say that capitalism is destroying the earth's orbit and will cause runaway "climate change" by plunging us into the sun if we don't tax the shit out of everything before it's too late! ThoAbEl wrote: Apart from its direct impact, the continuous and uncontrolled extraction of fossil fuels disturbs the structural stability of the earth's crust. Of course, and it will cause the crust to completely collapse in on itself, leaving us with just a crust, right before it causes the earth to fly into an uncontrollable death spin that will either crash us into other planets or will plunge us into the sun. Either way, it spells serious "climate" change. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 26-12-2018 07:53 | |
| discgolfdave☆☆☆☆☆ (3) |
I started this thread. Now I want to set the record straight. I was once an anthropogenic climate change denier. But now obviously I was wrong. We are changing the climate and we have limited time to act. We must act now. In the coming years a natural sun cycle will probably slow down the warming trend just a little. I hope we see this as an opportunity to act to reverse our impact on climate change and not an excuse to delay our response. The science is clear. Our activities are changing our climate. We are messing with the earth's thermostat and it will have dire consequences on the coming generations. If we don't act now it will cause the ruination of mankind. Of this I am now sure. There is plenty of science to back this up, just read, but more importantly contact your government representative to urge immediate action. |
| 26-12-2018 11:23 | |
HarveyH55 ★★★★★(5196) |
The more I read into 'Climate Change', the more I get the impression that CO2 and fossil fuels, were the pre-chosen conclusion, and all the research work has been to exclude everything else, and market the desired conclusion. This isn't science, it's an agenda. Maybe it's agreed that it's a reasonable course, to clean up the environment, but still a lie. We really don't know that much about the past, few thousand years at best. We don't know that atmospheric temperature is going to runaway, and just keep increasing. Fossil remains, considered millions of years old, tend to support a much high average temperature, higher CO2 levels, and being better for life on this planet. Carbon is the basis of all life on this planet, and CO2 is the major source for organic carbon. Plants are basic food for most all life forms, and pull the CO2 we all need, from the air. A climate best suited for plant growth, is better for all life, more food, more organic carbon. In greenhouse gardening, CO2 is commonly augmented to 1200-2000 ppm, considerably higher than our 400 ppm, or even the predicted levels that will lead to our demise. Most sciences are highly transparent, they want their results tested and verified. When they are confident they have the right answer, they want everybody to know it, want others to prove them wrong. Climate 'science' is the opposite, they only share enough to market a product, and do everything to squash anything that doesn't make that product shine. They put way to much emphasis on things they can only guess at (proxy data, computer models, scenarios), give these thing much higher value, rather than use it for what it is, something to discuss, but proof of nothing. We have no climate data from before the last major ice age, no way of know what is normal, just that it was likely warmer, and more CO2. If the science is so clear, and conclusive (completed), there would be no reason not to be completely open with the data and methods used to draw the conclusion. It's a conclusion, that demands compliance of pretty much all humans that use fossil fuel energy. The proposed changes are going to have a huge, and painful impact, if implemented as rapidly as possible, and demand quick and unquestioning compliance. Basically, 'Climate Science' is an insult, and a disappointment for all sciences in general. They seem to believe the 'science' is too complex, to be understood by anyone else, only they can interpret the results of their work correctly. They don't want to be challenged, they don't want anybody else to check their work, in any great detail. Any other scientific study, would want validation from as many as possible, builds their credibility. |
| 27-12-2018 19:54 | |
gfm7175 ★★★★★(3314) |
discgolfdave wrote: Oh, please do... I can't wait!!! discgolfdave wrote: I don't believe you. discgolfdave wrote: No, you weren't. discgolfdave wrote: No, we are not. We have no control over the climate. Act HOW and WHY? discgolfdave wrote: Act HOW and WHY? discgolfdave wrote: We have no control over that. discgolfdave wrote: What impact? discgolfdave wrote: There is no "the science"... Science is a set of falsifiable theories... AGW is NOT falsifiable... It is a religion based on a circularly defined buzzword... It is meaningless... It is a void argument... discgolfdave wrote: How? What changes? discgolfdave wrote: How so? What consequences? discgolfdave wrote: Act HOW and WHY? What ruination? Earth undergoes a change of +-100 degrees F every six months... It is called Winter and Summer... We'll be fine... discgolfdave wrote: No... You are rather a fundamentalist of a circularly defined buzzword religion... discgolfdave wrote: No, there is not. Science only concerns itself with falsifiable theories; this theory is not falsifiable. This theory is a religion which DENIES science (laws of thermodynamics and stefan boltzmann law, among others...) discgolfdave wrote: No need... We survive 100 degree F fluctuations every single year... We'll be just fine. Edited on 27-12-2018 19:56 |
Join the debate Too much emphasis on carbon dioxide?:
Related content
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems | 828 | 21-04-2024 08:43 |
| Happy fourth of July. I wonder how many liberals are eating carbon cooked burgers | 1 | 06-07-2023 23:52 |
| Uses for solid carbon | 30 | 06-07-2023 23:51 |
| Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Wetlands | 96 | 23-06-2023 14:49 |
| Biden wants to force 'carbon capture' | 8 | 21-06-2023 12:55 |