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.
If you do the math with the sun's emitted power received at earth, plus the Stefan-Boltzmann law, you get an equilibrium temperature of about 255K (-18C) for the earth. The earth had an average temperature of about 15C before industrial times; we are now at about 16C. The higher temperature is due to the presence of the atmosphere, specifically the "greenhouse gasses" which absorb some of the outgoing radiation.
Adding more greenhouse gasses will necessarily raise the average temperature. Nobody knows exactly how much the temperature will rise, but there is good reason to believe it will be significant (~4C by the end of this century) based on paleoclimate data and climate models.
Climate models are farce.
MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen,
claims believing that CO2 controls the climate “is pretty close to believing in magic.”
Climate models are farce.
MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen,
claims believing that CO2 controls the climate “is pretty close to believing in magic.”
Ok, so both of you should claim your Nobel Prizes for your work that shows AGW is false.
[CENTER]Figure 1A, all proxies that meet the basic criteria (resolution and span) https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/...nh-and-arctic/
t
During the geologic history of our planet, atm[co2] levels have averaged ~1500ppm. We're at 410ppm now. Photosynthesis stops around 160ppm.The last time world atm[co2] was this low for an extended period we had the Great Permian Extinction.
Food for thought. [Please note in the graph above, present is at the left. We're headed towards the next glaciation.]
[/CENTER]
Last edited by guidoLaMoto; 06-08-2017 at 12:03 PM..
Adding more greenhouse gasses will necessarily raise the average temperature. Nobody knows exactly how much the temperature will rise, but there is good reason to believe it will be significant (~4C by the end of this century) based on paleoclimate data and climate models.
A) re: models---garbage in, garbage out When the compute ris programmed to show how bad things will be, don't be surprised that that's what they show. The models are now ~ 2degC off from reality and getting worse.
2) co2 only absorbs radiation in a small band ~450um; please review the concept of "extinction of absorption"-- like dirt obscuring a lamp in a pool of water, once there's enough dirt in the water to block all the light, more dirt won't change anything. For co2, that will occur at ~450ppm in the atm, so, no danger of the dreaded "tipping point."
c) h2o, is way more abundant than co2 in the atm AND absorbs radiation over an extended spectrum, so, it is much more important than co2 as a GHG. BUT--more h2o also means more clouds, so overall effect on temps is mixed. Don't make the mistake of looking for a simple answer to a complex (figuratively and mathematically) problem.
Ever wonder why the supporters of AGW and the deniers are so obviously aligned according to politics? That's because it's not a question of science, but simply one of politics. Review Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.
The socialists in the EU are upset at Trump's exit from the Paris agreement because they were expecting us to pay for it. It has nothing to do with science or the environment.
A) re: models---garbage in, garbage out When the compute ris programmed to show how bad things will be, don't be surprised that that's what they show. The models are now ~ 2degC off from reality and getting worse.
2) co2 only absorbs radiation in a small band ~450um; please review the concept of "extinction of absorption"-- like dirt obscuring a lamp in a pool of water, once there's enough dirt in the water to block all the light, more dirt won't change anything. For co2, that will occur at ~450ppm in the atm, so, no danger of the dreaded "tipping point."
c) h2o, is way more abundant than co2 in the atm AND absorbs radiation over an extended spectrum, so, it is much more important than co2 as a GHG. BUT--more h2o also means more clouds, so overall effect on temps is mixed. Don't make the mistake of looking for a simple answer to a complex (figuratively and mathematically) problem.
Ever wonder why the supporters of AGW and the deniers are so obviously aligned according to politics? That's because it's not a question of science, but simply one of politics. Review Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.
The socialists in the EU are upset at Trump's exit from the Paris agreement because they were expecting us to pay for it. It has nothing to do with science or the environment.
Fine. If you believe that AGW is a hoax cooked up by Evil Socialists, buy lots of real estate in South Florida.
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.
