Herr Nilsson wrote:Hi Dave,
so you can rule out the possibility with certainty that there will no negative effect by increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere?
OpanaPointer wrote:RF wrote:[
What I do notice is that every time I challenge you to back up your assertions and clichés you avoid answering, as if you have no arguments or evidence to justify your claims.
97% of scientists in the field agree with the model. You are wrong. Prove them wrong and I'll listen to your claims. Until then the burden of proof is on you.
OpanaPointer wrote: You are wrong. Prove them wrong and I'll listen to your claims. Until then the burden of proof is on you.
RF wrote: ...snip...
For myself, as I acknowledge that the quote was not addressed specifically to me, I concur that there has been a slight increase in global temperatures that is caused by a natural process. Periods of warming and cooling can be traced back over millions of years. Over the last 350 years there has been a warming in the northern hemisphere from a cold period due to the natural cycles of the sun. Human activity as a contributor to that warming in my view is insignificant, although not zero.
The carbon dioxide content of Earth's atmosphere has fluctuated substantially of the millennia. Currently it has been only a trace gas and as such insufficient to trigger a warming process on its own. There is evidence that the CO2 content of Earth's atmosphere is starting to increase - but that increase is not material to rises in global temperatures.
Methane is even more of a trace gas. It is a very light gas and Earth's gravity is insufficient to hold on to it, so most of the methane will vent into outer space.
We are now past the current solar maximum. I would expect temperatures over the next 350 years to remain stable with possibly a small temperature increase. If there was no human activity on Earth I would expect temperatures to gradually reduce to where they were in Tudor times, so yes there is a small human impact. But not of the order of the AGW lobbyists.
If you feel that my view is unreasonable you can start the debate in another thread dedicated to that subject.
Mostlyharmless wrote:For example, does RF accept the evidence from satellite measurements of the Earth's surface temperature, the average troposphere temperature and the stratosphere temperature which now extend over almost 40 years? Does he also accept the measurements of solar radiance over the same period? Does he accept the measurements of carbon dioxide concentration (the Keeling Curve)?
Thus, there is no possible sensible way of denying that CO2 is warming the planet. The issue is by how much and what consequences will arise. Unfortunately, that is very difficult.
However, what is meant by natural processes?
For example, does RF accept the evidence from satellite measurements of the Earth's surface temperature, the average troposphere temperature and the stratosphere temperature which now extend over almost 40 years? Does he also accept the measurements of solar radiance over the same period? Does he accept the measurements of carbon dioxide concentration (the Keeling Curve)?
Thus, the political argument on what if anything needs to be done occurs in the shadow of scientists arguing for between 1.3 and more than 6 degrees warming.
• The ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity to a doubling of co2 concentration) might be almost zero, is likely less than 0.25 °C, and most likely less than 0.5 °C.
• The fraction of global warming caused by increasing CO2 in recent decades, μ, is likely less than 20%
•The CO2 sensitivity, is likely less than 0.15 °C W−1 m2 (less than a third of the solar
sensitivity). Given a non-ascending WVEL (water vapor emissions level), it is difficult to construct a scenario consistent with the observed data in which the influence of CO2 is greater than this.
Dave Saxton wrote:...snip...
Regarding sea level rise, we have not seen an acceleration in rate of sea level rise. It is still rising the same 1-3 mm per year that it has been for centuries. Yes, that is millimeters, not centimeters, and certainly not meters.
I am becoming convinced that global warming is even more complicated than deciding if an arrangement of armour can benefit by yaw enough to balance out the weakening effects of using multiple layers.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests