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.
I disagree that living well materially is incompatible with living responsibly. I think we can have both. And we can have both in a self-centered egoistic Capitalistic society with freedom and individual rights at the core of our values. To the degree that Green Living is rights respecting and based on Capitalism, I can agree with certain aspects. But when Green Living becomes socialism, statism, coercion, compulsion, collectivism, and tyranny, I must act to stop it.
Don't confuse Capitalism with Democracy. What we have now appears to be some type of Autocratic Capitalism.
I tried to fact check this and what I found didnt match your numbers. But maybe I had the time frames incorrect, would not be the first time.
Can you please post the link this data came from?
The data comes from various sources I've collected over the last 6-8 years, including Columbia University, the State of Utah's government website and peer-reviewed published papers.
Note that the pre-industrial period is pegged at 13.8°C or 56.8°F, so add 56.8°F + 15.3°F = 72.1°F.
At the end of the last Inter-Glacial Period, there was neither an ice-sheet nor a glacier on Greenland; it was totally ice free.
All that was left was a very large "snow bank" that ran in a northwesterly manner just west of the mountains on the east coast of Greenland.
I used to post an image of what is left of the Greenland Ice Sheet, but people didn't like it and kept reporting it, and so it kept getting deleted, even though the image is from NASA's website.
Here's another:
On the basis of water stable isotopes, NEEM surface temperatures after the onset of the Eemian (126,000 years ago) peaked at 8 ± 4 degrees Celsius above the mean of the past millennium, followed by a gradual cooling that was probably driven by the decreasing summer insolation. Between 128,000 and 122,000 years ago, the thickness of the northwest Greenland ice sheet decreased by 400 ± 250 metres, reaching surface elevations 122,000 years ago of 130 ± 300 metres lower than the present. Extensive surface melt occurred at the NEEM site during the Eemian, a phenomenon witnessed when melt layers formed again at NEEM during the exceptional heat of July 2012. With additional warming, surface melt might become more common in the future.
They're saying plus/minus 4°C so 12°C is 21.6°F and 4°C is 7.2°F.
One of the more recent intriguing findings is the remarkable speed of these changes. Within the incredibly short time span (by geologic standards) of only a few decades or even a few years, global temperatures have fluctuated by as much as 15°F (8°C) or more. For example, as Earth was emerging out of the last glacial cycle, the warming trend was interrupted 12,800 years ago when temperatures dropped dramatically in only several decades. A mere 1,300 years later, temperatures locally spiked as much as 20°F (11°C) within just several years. Sudden changes like this occurred at least 24 times during the past 100,000 years. In a relative sense, we are in a time of unusually stable temperatures today—how long will it last?
As you can see, Earth is prone to wildly fluctuating temperatures.
The cause of these sudden spikes in temperature, higher or lower, is unknown, but one thing is certain, it's in everyone's best interest to try to understand why these temperature fluctuations occurs, and few scientists, if any at all, are doing that largely because money is being wasted on global warming.
A sudden drop in temperatures like that which occurred 12,800 years ago would make large areas of Earth unsuitable for farming, and wreck havoc with the food supply.
That's why the IPCC has a hopeless conflict of interest, because as its constitution states, its mandate is to consider only the human causes of global warming, not the many natural causes changing the climate for billions of years.
Nature462, 342-345 (19 November 2009) | doi:10.1038/nature08564; Received 9 October 2008; Accepted 5 October 2009
Evidence for warmer interglacials in East Antarctic ice cores
For warmer climates, an analyse of several long (340 kyr) ice core records from across East Antarctica, alongside input from isotopic GCM modelling, indicated that for warmer interglacial periods, conversions vary between different East Antarctic ice core sites (Sime et al. 2009). Results indicate that the East Antarctic water isotopes tend to be less sensitive to temperature changes during warmer climates. This indicates that previous temperature estimates from interglacial climates are likely to be too low. The available evidence is consistent with Antarctic interglacial temperatures that were significantly (more than 6°C) higher than present day.
[emphasis mine]
6°C is 10.8°F
All of the more recent papers published in journals show temperature increases much higher than the 10.4°F from an older published paper.
The IPCC claims that at 540 ppm of CO2, there'll be a 1.2°C (2.2°F) rise in temperature. Because of the Radiative Property, it requires 1080 ppm of CO2 to increase another 1.2°C, then 2160 ppm to increase another 1.2°C, then 4320 ppm to increase another 1.2°C, and the 8640 ppm, 17,280 ppm and 34,560 ppm to increase the same amount and so on.
But that's only true if CO2 actually causes warming, and it doesn't.
CO2 absorbs at 2.7 microns, 4.3 microns and 15 microns.
Since Earth does not emit Black Body Radiation at 2.7 microns, we only have to look at 4.3 microns and 15 microns, and we'll apply Wien's Law to both.
Wien's Law T (Temperature) = b / wavelength in micrometers, where "b" is a constant equal to 2,900 um-K.
T = 2,900 um-K / 15 um = 193°K = -112°F
T = 2,900 um-K / 4.3 um = 673.9°K = 753°F
What we can infer from science is that 4.3 microns has far greater energy than 15 microns, however the amount of Black Body Radiation Earth emits at 4.3 microns is minuscule, as this link proves:
Yes, s/he wants to flaunt the wanton, greedy, foul and totally self-centered lifestyle. Pigs are not ashamed to roll around in the mud and they think it is wonderful. Rats love garbage, and maggots prefer to eat corpses. It is as if one makes a covenant with death for themselves and those around them.
Being self-centered and enjoying the material magnificence of life is the correct way to live. Self-interest is the core of a life lived to its maximum efficacy. I’m doing it right, and to the extent that you emulate me, so do you.
Thanks for those references on past temperature extremes. Interesting..
However, when I got to the part you made up, I think that section is very incorrect.
Quote:
But that's only true if CO2 actually causes warming, and it doesn't.
CO2 absorbs at 2.7 microns, 4.3 microns and 15 microns.
Since Earth does not emit Black Body Radiation at 2.7 microns, we only have to look at 4.3 microns and 15 microns, and we'll apply Wien's Law to both.
Wien's Law T (Temperature) = b / wavelength in micrometers, where "b" is a constant equal to 2,900 um-K.
T = 2,900 um-K / 15 um = 193°K = -112°F
T = 2,900 um-K / 4.3 um = 673.9°K = 753°F
What we can infer from science is that 4.3 microns has far greater energy than 15 microns, however the amount of Black Body Radiation Earth emits at 4.3 microns is minuscule, as this link proves:
We can use your own reference to show the interaction of CO2 with the IR emitted with the planet.
CO2 only has a minor interaction with visible light however it has a strong interaction with UV in the 14 to 16 u range peaking around 15 u.
And lets just look at the gif that is your source.
The upper curve shows the spectral emission from earth. There is a lot of energy in the 14 to 16 u wavelength range right where CO2 is very good at absorbing energy.
I don't get it. The only way to stop AGW is to reduce the number of people on this planet, but 99% of the chicken littles insist on maximizing the population growth.
In what Im trying to look at now, it seems there are two separate technical discussions..
First, if CO2 increases, how much will the global temp also rise and are the effects lingering
Second, what the heck does a temperature rise mean? Micrea's post a few back shows some pretty wild variations in the past. What does that mean for life now with billions of people on the planet. If you want to know what about 1C increase in just over 100 years is, well.. you are living it. Every ones experience must be different.
Regarding the first question on how much the temperature will rise, here are a couple more links
I don't get it. The only way to stop AGW is to reduce the number of people on this planet, but 99% of the chicken littles insist on maximizing the population growth.
Nobody is denying that co2 is a GHG..we're explaining why it's not very important as a GHG---
A) It does not "trap" heat, it only slows down the escape of heat.
b)All the heat it can influence, is already influenced to nearly a max and further rises in co2 will have little effect on speed of heat escape. More co2 will only confine its influence to a thinner layer of atmosphere.
3) h20 is present in a much greater concentration in the atmosphere and also absorbs heat at the same wavelengths as co2. h2o has a much, much greater influence as a GHG than co2
d) Other factors determining weather/climate are much more influential than co2--that's why there appears to be no correlation between co2 and temps. The effect of co2 is lost like a spit n the ocean.
Note that Earth's climate is influenced by several cycles (really pseudo-cycles. We're talking about the mathematics of chaos here) ...the Milankovitch cycle, the solar cycle, the galactic cycle, the various ocean and atmospheric cycles.....try graphing the equation Y = Sin X + Sin 2X + Sin 3X and see what you get---- you get a repeating pattern of small and wide swings of Y as each individual sin function in the equation adds or interferes with the others as X proceeds along. Does that graph remind you of anything?
It would seem we are going in a circles on this. Everything I am reading (from real experts) is that in our time frame it definitely is CO2 that is causing the current warming. The only place this is denied is on conservative blogs and in forums like. You guys are clearly intelligent people but definitely not experts.
The question I am asking myself now is how much will the temperature rise with increasing CO2 gas. The IPCC numbers seem pretty extreme and maybe are questionable. What Im not finding anything credible at all on is that we are not experiencing warming due to CO2.. (except the odd correlation to conservatives who say this and there appears to have been oil and gas industry funding for years in an attempt to hoax people about this).
Here is some text again regarding why CO2 is the main contributor to the current 1C rise we have seen in just 118 years. The first description is from this link https://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=2414&p=2
If you need more references, there are more.. I can keep on posting them if you want.
-------------------
The mistaken idea that the Greenhouse Effect is 'saturated', that adding more CO2 will have virtually no effect, is based on a simple misunderstanding of how the Greenhouse Effect works.
The myth goes something like this:
CO2 absorbs nearly all the Infrared (heat) radiation leaving the Earth's surface that it can absorb. True!
Therefore adding more CO2 won't absorb much more IR radiation at the surface. True!
Therefore adding more CO2 can't cause more warming. FALSE!!!
Here's why; it ignores the very simplest arithmetic.
If the air is only absorbing heat from the surface then the air should just keep getting hotter and hotter. By now the Earth should be a cinder from all that absorbed heat. But not too surprisingly, it isn't! What are we missing?
The air doesn't just absorb heat, it also loses it as well! The atmosphere isn't just absorbing IR Radiation (heat) from the surface. It is also radiating IR Radiation (heat) to Space. If these two heat flows are in balance, the atmosphere doesn't warm or cool - it stays the same.
we can change how much heat there is in the atmosphere by restricting how much heat leaves the atmosphere rather than by increasing how much is being absorbed by the atmosphere.
This is how the Greenhouse Effect works. The Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and water vapour absorb most of the heat radiation leaving the Earth's surface. Then their concentration determines how much heat escapes from the top of the atmosphere to space. It is the change in what happens at the top of the atmosphere that matters, not what happens down here near the surface.
So how does changing the concentration of a Greenhouse gas change how much heat escapes from the upper atmosphere? As we climb higher in the atmosphere the air gets thinner. There is less of all gases, including the greenhouse gases. Eventually the air becomes thin enough that any heat radiated by the air can escape all the way to Space. How much heat escapes to space from this altitude then depends on how cold the air is at that height. The colder the air, the less heat it radiates.
So if we add more greenhouse gases the air needs to be thinner before heat radiation is able to escape to space. So this can only happen higher in the atmosphere. Where it is colder. So the amount of heat escaping is reduced.
By adding greenhouse gases, we force the radiation to space to come from higher, colder air, reducing the flow of radiation to space. And there is still a lot of scope for more greenhouse gases to push 'the action' higher and higher, into colder and colder air, restricting the rate of radiation to space even further.
Really can not find any credible source that says CO2 isnt what is causing our current temperature spike. But you can find credible sources who think the IPCC numbers are too dramatic (ie, too high of temp change per CO2 concentration).
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.
