This has been done to death already. Constantly repeating it until he agrees with us isn't helpful.
Justa - how interesting in that the graph illustrates predominant long extreme cooling periods with just a few very peakish warm periods of short duration and how responders only talk about the slim peaks and are mute about the wide and deep valleys of a cold earth!
That is cherry picking data. Seeing Only what you want to see.
[serious];66733742 said:That graph is actually a great example of the current problem.
Let me use an analogy, what would happen if you are driving your car and hit a brick wall at 10 miles per hour? What would happen if you hit that same wall at 100 miles per hour?
Eyeballing that chart, looks like we see 5 degree swings over the course of 5000 years, or a rate of 1 degree every 1000 years. Current warming trends over the part 40 years are 10 times more rapid.
The research, published today in the journal Nature Communications, used a simulation from a highly complex model to analyse the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), an important component of the Earths climate system.
It showed that early warning signals are present up to 250 years before it collapses, suggesting that scientists could monitor the real world overturning circulation for the same signals.
The AMOC is like a conveyor belt in the ocean, driven by the salinity and temperature of the water. The system transports heat energy from the tropics and Southern Hemisphere to the North Atlantic, where it is transferred to the atmosphere.
Experiments suggest that if the AMOC is switched off by extra freshwater entering the North Atlantic, surface air temperature in the North Atlantic region would cool by around 1-3°C, with enhanced cooling of up to 8°C in the worst affected regions.
...
Experiments suggest that if the AMOC is switched off by extra freshwater entering the North Atlantic, surface air temperature in the North Atlantic region would cool by around 1-3°C, with enhanced cooling of up to 8°C in the worst affected regions.
I would keep my eyes on what nature has and can do rather than man's Global Warming speculations and no predictive skill climate models.
Misinformation excelled in explaining what was causing the "unprecedented " California drought.
But the scientific literature has been changing, since The Pause has to be a result of something besides induced by CO2. The trend in a more balance understanding of what controls climate and brings about weather and climate events on earth has come during The Pause. Praise the Lord Jesus.
Again, read Posts #1. Do you understand radiation physics and how to determine the effects of GHGs? I think not since you have repeated the first sentence of Post #1 over and over - and have appeared to not comprehend what was presented in Posts #1, and many posts since then.
I do understand the greenhouse effect. You don't, as your posts demonstrate. Here is what you said.
"CO2 is a greenhouse gas that absorbs solar radiation at select spectra wavelengths. So?"
Do you understand what is wrong with your statement?
Well, you have to at least admit that the atmosphere of the Earth (including C02) doesn't absorb all wavelengths equally. Thankfully x-rays are absorbed more fully than white light?
Those air pollutants kill far more human beings year after year than nuclear power and renewable energy combined watt for watt. That's the bottom line IMO. The 'global warming" debate requires too much effort to fully appreciate, and most folks aren't willing to do it.
Thankfully, most of the photons produced by the Sun that reach the Earth's atmosphere are in the white light spectrum, wavelengths that are not absorbed by CO2. However, those wavelengths are absorbed by the Earth. Some of that absorbed energy goes into increasing the kinetic energy of the Earth, also known as heating. Some of that energy is re-emitted, and it is re-emitted in the IR spectrum where IT IS ABSORBED BY CO2. The greenhouse effect is caused by the absorption of EARTH'S RADIATION and not solar radiation, a simple concept that some people can't seem to understand.
The developed world went through the same stage that China is going through now. In the beginning of industrialization, cheap energy is preferred over clean energy. As time moves forward, China will clean up their act. What we will be left with is CO2 even after we clean up the other emissions from the dirty burning coal.
I basically agree with you on this topic, I just think that C02 and global warming are too far removed from each other (scientifically) for average folks to fully appreciate.
On the other hand, air pollution and it's link to C02 release is pretty easy for most folks to comprehend.
Furthermore, the pollution released from our use of coal is probably statistically more likely to kill them in their lifetime than global warming.
I also have a slightly cynical perspective in terms of politicians and their corrupted use of "carbon credits" as a means to deal with this issue. A more direct approach and a more direct investment in technology would be a more appropriate governmental response IMO.
What do you mean?
The link between coal and air pollution has nothing to do with CO2. The pollution is caused by molecules other than CO2, and has to do with how the coal is burned and how emissions are treated.
We can chew bubblegum and walk at the same time.
Conservatives are not willing to spend that kind of money on direct research and infrastructure investment. They prefer "free market" approaches, which is what the carbon credits are meant to work through.
I mean that plants absorb C02, and the Earth has natural heating and cooling cycles with or without man's influence. Most folks don't have a real strong scientific understanding of the link between excess C02, it's it's overall long term effect on the environment.
On the other hand most folks can sometimes *see* and sometimes even *feel* (in their lungs) the air pollution that is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. They have pretty good understanding of the concept of personally getting cancer from such pollution, particularly if they experience it on a regular basis.
The 'global warming' thing is a little more complex with a lot of factors.
True, but those molecules are in the coal that we're burning and they get into the atmosphere without being fully treated properly.
Then we can also appreciate that excess C02 also relates to excess air pollution as well.
It's a nice "intent" of course, but in my experience the intent and the results are often not all that congruent. We'd be better off IMO directly investing in newer and safer nuclear technologies and renewable resources.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?