Climate and Weather

Ricky Fandango said:
Rest assured, Co2 will come down as the earth cools, and the earth will cool again,....not that it matters that much. (as far as we know)
Click to expand...
I agree. CO2 levels have risen and fallen dramatically. The Earth warms and cools cyclically. But I am not sure there has ever been a period in Earths history, certainly not since the KT extinction event, where climate change with such pace. Usually it takes thousands of years, in the case of Pleistocene ice ages, to tens of millions of years, in the case of Cryogenian Snowball Earth. We are seeing climate change in a space of less than 100 years.
 
Ricky Fandango said:
Looks like the number of extinction events have gone down as the earth's C02 levels have dropped. (according to this chart)
Should we make SUV ownership mandatory?
Click to expand...
Pretty funny. I'm not saying that life cannot adapt to higher or lower CO2 levels. The fossil record proves it can. But changing CO2 levels does change the type of life. After every extinction event (and there are about 25 documented events) new types of life come to dominate. We would not exist except for the KT extinction event. Dinosaurs would not have existed but for the Permian extinction event. If it weren't for the Silurian extinction event, the most prolific life form might still be trilobites.

If we have another extinction event now, do you think that humans are the terrestrial life-form most likely to survive it? My vote goes to the arthropods.
 
Daniel Miller said:
I agree. CO2 levels have risen and fallen dramatically. The Earth warms and cools cyclically. But I am not sure there has ever been a period in Earths history, certainly not since the KT extinction event, where climate change with such pace. Usually it takes thousands of years, in the case of Pleistocene ice ages, to tens of millions of years, in the case of Cryogenian Snowball Earth. We are seeing climate change in a space of less than 100 years.
Click to expand...

Right, rate of the current forcing regime, not its magnitude per se, that is distinct from past epochs. Nothing in the natural carbon cycle works fast enough to modulate.
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
Right, rate of the current forcing regime, not its magnitude per se, that is distinct from past epochs. Nothing in the natural carbon cycle works fast enough to modulate.
Click to expand...
The terms "magnitude," "epoch," and "carbon cycle" are argot. It sounds like you have a background in the sciences. Except the word "per se," which makes you sound like a lawyer.
 
Ricky Fandango said:
Jurassic period- 4,000 ppm, and life thrived. Giant life forms as well as increasing divergent variations overall.
Click to expand...

Like others, not sure where you were going with this. If it has to do with gas/heme exchange and CO2 toxicity, it takes a lot of CO2 to prevent exchange. If its the "lots of CO2 in past atmospheres and yet all the seas didn't boil so that means that CO2 being driver of current climate change is wrong" canard keep in mind that for the geologic periods cited the sun's luminosity on the main sequence was about 5% less than current. So that's ballpark 55 W/m2. In comparison, variation in irradiance based on 11 year cycle is about 1 W/m2
 
espola said:
"We are in a global cooling period and all the data we have in our computer system warns that the earth is turning cold not warm."

Sucker.
Click to expand...

George Soros has stopped his funding to the down stream internet Trolls who
daily post ignorant childish rebuttals to push down the TRUTH.
You might want cash those recent checks you received .......

Sucker..
 
espola said:
Models built with the intent of satisfying a political agenda are not likely to be correct.
Click to expand...


Look no further than the " Hockey Stick "," Tree Ring " data You Liberal's have spouted .....
And all based on a False Premise.....
All the Scientists who bellied up to the Global Warming/Climate Change trough will NEVER
regain there character EVER !
 
Daniel Miller said:
I agree. CO2 levels have risen and fallen dramatically. The Earth warms and cools cyclically. But I am not sure there has ever been a period in Earths history, certainly not since the KT extinction event, where climate change with such pace. Usually it takes thousands of years, in the case of Pleistocene ice ages, to tens of millions of years, in the case of Cryogenian Snowball Earth. We are seeing climate change in a space of less than 100 years.
Click to expand...


You cannot prove what you just spouted.....and you KNOW I am Right !
 
Daniel Miller said:
I agree. CO2 levels have risen and fallen dramatically. The Earth warms and cools cyclically. But I am not sure there has ever been a period in Earths history, certainly not since the KT extinction event, where climate change with such pace. Usually it takes thousands of years, in the case of Pleistocene ice ages, to tens of millions of years, in the case of Cryogenian Snowball Earth. We are seeing climate change in a space of less than 100 years.
Click to expand...
I dont believe the change in global temperatures within the last 150 years are exceptional.
Read this. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwjjkeuOj7rYAhUEwFQKHVY5B_sQFgg0MAE&url=https://history.aip.org/climate/cycles.htm&usg=AOvVaw3KG0jUSnOadR7pO7-hWLBd
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
Like others, not sure where you were going with this. If it has to do with gas/heme exchange and CO2 toxicity, it takes a lot of CO2 to prevent exchange. If its the "lots of CO2 in past atmospheres and yet all the seas didn't boil so that means that CO2 being driver of current climate change is wrong" canard keep in mind that for the geologic periods cited the sun's luminosity on the main sequence was about 5% less than current. So that's ballpark 55 W/m2. In comparison, variation in irradiance based on 11 year cycle is about 1 W/m2
Click to expand...
Perspective.
Co2 is not a pollutant, or an evil earth boiling acid.
Its an essential gas, as well as a recently honed political weapon.
 
Multi Sport said:
And you believe that all the models that show Global Warming have been done so with no political agenda in mind?
Click to expand...

All? No. A proper reviewed by competent reviewers would have exposed an agenda that was not supported by the observations or established scientific principles.
 
Multi Sport said:
Do you believe all models that refute Global Warming are politically motivated?
Click to expand...
Let us assume that among qualified climate researchers there is a very small percentage that are politically or financially motivated to reach a certain conclusion. For the sake of argument, let's assume that it is 10% on each side of the man-made climate change argument. About 95% of all qualified researchers come down on the side that our current climate change is unprecedented in its rate, and that it is caused by human activity. About 5% disagrees. If we take away 10% from each side, we get 86 out of 100 believing that our current climate change is unprecedented in its rate, and that it is caused by human activity. We get only 4 or 5 out of 100 disagreeing.

The sound bet is with the 86, and against the 4 or 5 outlier researchers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top