Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Very impressive Bagz but the bottom graph is a much better representation of what is happening now. The top two graphs compress 10,000 years into 3/16 of an inch, not much accuracy there. Another point with the top two graphs, if you look closely you'll see that Present = 1950. So your information on those two is over a half century old we've got more and better data now.
I've been to the National Ice Core Laboratory and have seen the "compressed" graph on an entire wall with the latest data. Trust me, the swings in temperature are even more dramatic than this graph shows - and they are not man made. I have also seen that the rate of increase we are seeing today is low (historically speaking)
Quote:
Whether CO2 levels proceed temperature or vis versa hasn't been completely determined yet, it goes both ways. What people are saying is that elevated CO2 means elevated temperature. Looking at the graphs we can see the temperature swings. A 3 degree C temperature rise above 0 appears to be followed by a 6 degree C temperature fall below zero apparently a two to one ratio average.
We do know one thing, they are not caused by man.
Quote:
If we have a rapid temperature increase over a short period of time, say 100 years will we have a rapid three fold temperature drop? Is 1880 at the zero line or is 1880 at the plus 2 degree C? If 1880 already was plus 2 degrees then right now were at the plus 3.5 degree mark. Have we reached the apex of temperature rise?
Look closely, the zero line is 1950 (present) and the bottom graph is in degrees F not C so the rise in temperature from 1950 to 2004 is about 1/2 of a degree C. Now put that on the large chart and you will see that we are nowhere close to the 3.5 degree C mark. We are actually well below the 2 degree mark.
So CO2 levels correlate with temperature before man's impact and CO2 correlates with temperature (using a completely different scale that is orders of magnitudes off) after man's impact. Now lets look at the small graph. The CO2 curve is a simple curve that is increasing in a non linear fashion as is the Temperature curve. Any time you have 2 curves that are increasing in that manner, it is easy to manipulate the scale to put them right on top of each other. Although this graph does show what is happening now, you must look at the long term history if you want to argue cause. I would argue that these 2 graphs prove that CO2 does not CAUSE a temperature increase, but rather temperature increases cause CO2 increases and man's impact has added additional CO2 into an environment that was already naturally increasing.
Quote:
The question is what happens to cause the temp to fall so much further than it rose? More moisture in the atmosphere or cooler oceans then more precipitation? We don't know do we?
We don't know, but one theory is that an increase in CO2 allows plant life to flourish. This plant life then absorbs energy -cooling the earth naturally. Then we hit a critical mass and snow stays longer and reflects energy away.
CO2 is not a poison, it is essential for photosynthesis. The more we have, the greener the earth is. So why would a cause adopt green for a color and then oppose the very chemical that promotes green?
Could it be that the release of CO2 by man is actually slowing down global warming? If that MIGHT be the case, why would you RISK the life of the planet on a scheme (reducing CO2 emissions) that could cause catastrophic consequences? .....Ever hear this argument before?
Man made or not, the earth is warming, so instead of spending our resources replacing all engines and light bulbs and motors (and everything that uses energy) we should be doing more common sense things (like not building new homes below sea level behind some outdated levy system) or building dams to irrigate farmland in future arid regions. Unfortunately, the very group calling for the ridiculous expensive reforms is the group opposing the common sense progress for the protection of humanity.
Quote:
If there was a copper shell around the planet we might have something to discuss, but there isn't. In addition copper is opaque to the higher frequencies of radiation so if there were a copper shell no heat would get to the earth surface to begin with. The beneficial and potentially harmful properties of the greenhouse gases is that they are essentially translucent to high frequencies and opaque to lower frequencies. The Sun has a larger component of high frequency radiation in its spectrum so a lot of it's radiation reaches the Earth through the layer of greenhouse gas. When the Earth re-radiates that energy, it's in a lower frequency spectrum which the greenhouse gases preferentially absorb, trapping the energy within our atmosphere. As the concentration of these gases accumulates in our atmosphere, the temperature of the Earth will increase.
I do need to ask what legitimate science courses you've taken in your life? I have completed college physics through courses in quantum mechanics and nuclear fission. That would include a semester of Heat, Waves and Optics, which treats the behavior of the radiation we refer to as "black body radiation."
Um he was using copper as an analogy. He agrees that it not the cause. He was showing you that just because 2 things rise exponentially at the same time does not mean they are correlated or that one causes the other.
I have taken all the classes you mentioned (I have a physics minor) in addition to Philosophy, Logic, and Economics. These are the areas I might inquire on concerning your education.
Today 09:57 AM
Up too late, Missed the scale differences, needed to convert Degress F to C which as you said is .5 C rise since 1950 and a theoretical .72 C rise since 1880 but where is 1880? Is it on the zero line or on the plus 1 or 2 degress c slope? That was my question. You can't determine that from the upper graphs.
That's the funny part about climate. Like the thermos... How do it work?
You can super impose graphs for a purpose and since both are related to time there should be some correlation. Do we get a heat caused rise of CO2 with an increase in water evaporation, more cloud cover then rain fall? Or do we atsome point get a heat rise caused by increased CO2 followed by cloud cover and rainfall. Like the tropics and fire storms they create their own weather. If you've ever been involved with a fire storm it's insane. It's even more insane when some fool arsonist has struck the match for his enjoyment.
I think the global warming issues are disbelieved by many because the scientist pushing it are dependent on the funding for everything they do.It maybe true and it maybe untrue. We have seen for centuries that scientist have been very bad at predicting what is hapepning in the environmental world.Too many ploitical and funding ties for the common man to connect to the issue really.
I think the global warming issues are disbelieved by many because the scientist pushing it are dependent on the funding for everything they do.It maybe true and it maybe untrue. We have seen for centuries that scientist have been very bad at predicting what is hapepning in the environmental world.Too many ploitical and funding ties for the common man to connect to the issue really.
So you're postulating that there's a big conspiracy among the Bush Administration to hype the issue of anthropogenic global warming? That doesn't seem to square with their public statements. Hansen at NASA has been very vocal about the Administration's attempts to muzzle him.
In addition the funding of climate change is incredibly diverse. Much more so that virtually any other scientific inquire I'm aware of.
So you're postulating that there's a big conspiracy among the Bush Administration to hype the issue of anthropogenic global warming? That doesn't seem to square with their public statements. Hansen at NASA has been very vocal about the Administration's attempts to muzzle him.
In addition the funding of climate change is incredibly diverse. Much more so that virtually any other scientific inquire I'm aware of.
Not a conspiracy. But the argument holds that if there is no issue, then there is no reason to fund the issue. And if you want to earn a living on the issue, you must argue for the issue. This alone creates one-sided funding. There are enough people in government and industry that benefit from the fear generated to support the issue so that no conspiracy is required. For these reasons I prefer to analyze the data myself over trusting some politician who says there is a consensus.
You don't like copper? Then you can use any gas, metal, soil, rock, concrete, radio waves, whatever you want and apply it to the same application as CO2 and still get the same result as those who say that CO2 causes global warming... why pick CO2? Why not O2 or N2... Why not radio waves bouncing back from CO2 and causing global warming... they are all low frequency... total bunk. Mars has 95% of its atmosphere consisting of CO2... its surface temperatures are at a deep freeze of -140 degrees... Venus has an atmosphere of 97% CO2 and its temperatures is 450 degrees... The difference? Venus has lots of cloud cover and a THICKER atmosphere... and by "thick" I don't mean DENSE just in case you would like to deviate from "thickness" as a measurement of size to a measurement of density.... last time I check, the atmosphere on Earth change due to CO2 degassing was several order of magnitude lower than the "natural" cycle... (you might want to google mantel degassing since it is the reason for changing the thickness of the atmosphere).. another fault with your "high-frequency low-frequency" theory is that CO2 layer in the atmosphere would HEAT up by all the low-frequency being trapped by the CO2 and redirected back to earth... unfortunately that layer in the atmosphere does NOT increase in temperatures... but oh well, we'll just use "magic" and ideal concepts to explain things that don't make any sense anyhow...
It is a serious oversimplification to talk about CO2 leading or lagging temperature. What important is the understand the impact of atmospheric CO2 on heat retention and then understand sources and sinks for atmospheric CO2. It's also important to understand that climate change will affect different land masses differently. It will not be universally true that temperature increases will promote drier climates. In some areas things will get wetter as more water evaporates and is returned as rain. The impact of warming will also be mixed on the agricultural cycle, because while some plant may grow faster (and an increase in CO2 does not necessarily increase plant growth) sequestering CO2, decay will happen faster too, releasing more methane which is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.
I would suggest that in the environment in which we live now, anthropogenic CO2 is leading, while water vapor and non-anthropogenic CO2 are probably lagging. The positive feedback effect of non-anthropogenic CO2 and water vapor will amplify the impact of anthropogenic CO2 on global climate.
You don't like copper? Then you can use any gas, metal, soil, rock, concrete, radio waves, whatever you want and apply it to the same application as CO2 and still get the same result as those who say that CO2 causes global warming... why pick CO2? Why not O2 or N2... Why not radio waves bouncing back from CO2 and causing global warming... they are all low frequency... total bunk. Mars has 95% of its atmosphere consisting of CO2... its surface temperatures are at a deep freeze of -140 degrees... Venus has an atmosphere of 97% CO2 and its temperatures is 450 degrees... The difference? Venus has lots of cloud cover and a THICKER atmosphere... and by "thick" I don't mean DENSE just in case you would like to deviate from "thickness" as a measurement of size to a measurement of density.... last time I check, the atmosphere on Earth change due to CO2 degassing was several order of magnitude lower than the "natural" cycle... (you might want to google mantel degassing since it is the reason for changing the thickness of the atmosphere).. another fault with your "high-frequency low-frequency" theory is that CO2 layer in the atmosphere would HEAT up by all the low-frequency being trapped by the CO2 and redirected back to earth... unfortunately that layer in the atmosphere does NOT increase in temperatures... but oh well, we'll just use "magic" and ideal concepts to explain things that don't make any sense anyhow...
I'll use methane, nitrous oxide and Water Vapor then. O2 and N2 aren't effective at absorbing or reflecting black body radiation. BTW a portion of radio waves are reflected back into the atmosphere and theoretically would somewhat alter the energy balance of earth. The amount of energy is insignificant.
BTW the latest estimates I've seen have anthropogenic greenhouse gas production at 50 times the rate of mantle degassing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
