It's the perfect analogy: He MIGHT get cancer, so start the drastic, life-threatening, debitilitating treatments before anything happens!
And I still want some warmingist to tell me what, precisely, is _bad_ about more prolific plant growth, longer growing seasons, less harsh winters >> lower heating costs >> less fossil fuel consumption? Admittedly, John would have to do with a shorter skiing season or go to higher altitudes.
Solar cooling sounds contradictory, but remember, basements are _always_ cool, even in summer, with a dehumidifier as needed. Color your roof black, and put air ducts that, when heated by the sun, will draw fresh air into the basement, up through the house, and out the vents? Warmer air does rise, after all. And except for the dehumidifier, it's entirely passive, i.e., doesn't cost anything to run.
I say, bring on the warming! Especially now:
formatting link
And very few people seem to remember the 1970's, when the catastrophe du jour was the coming ice age!
I've seen his graph, and he stands there and lies to your face - he calls the temp. graph "CO2" and the CO2 graph "Temperature." The facts are that CO2 levels actually _follow_ temperature rises. This is simple to understand, when you consider that warm water can dissolve LESS CO2 than cooler water.
And presenting something such that left to right is backwards in time is just plain deceptive.
People and plants live all over the world, in all sorts of climates, much of which they haven't had time to genetically adapt to. And people and plants move around. I grew up in New Orleans, where it's brutally hot, and moved to San Francisco, where it's usually chilly. It hasn't done me any harm. You seem to be claiming that every human local population is optimally adapted to its particular microclimate. Nonsense.
Predictions about the regional effects of CO2 (floods here, drought there, disaster everywhere) are *weather* predictions.
Right. That may be why AGW-induced-monster-hurricane predictions aren't as popular as they were a few years ago.
Sure I can. Just quantify the proportion of your posts to s.e.d. that have anything to do with electronics. Or the proportion that display any positive enthusiam or joy about anything. Or the proportion that contain tedious insults. Or the fraction that even try to be helpful.
Get a life, dude, before it's too late. Do you want to spend the rest of your life being a sour old grump?
.........
That's because you don't want to look. Try the obvious google keywords; there's lots of stuff.
Also look up FACE, free-air carbon enrichment experients.
Geez, it's a good thing you don't design electronics.
It's a positive feedback. Obviously, whether the temperature rise precedes or follows the CO2 rise depends on whether it is the CO2 that is externally forced or the temperature.
Fine. They'll make a great carbon sink. And then we can 1) eat them 2) feed them to livestock 3) turn them into motor fuel.
And if all that fails, we'll just convince the Chinese that they're aphrodisiacs.
BTW, that 1000-2000ppm figure is just another data point suggesting that today's levels might be abnormally low.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
The world is coming to an end. Please log off.
At least some people growing vegetables in greenhouses burn propane or natural gas (methane) and feed the exhaust gases into the greenhouse to increase growth.
However, the CO2 level must be kept below 1000 ppm to avoid headache, if people are going to enter the greenhouse, when the heater is on.
PRECICELY!!! It is climate politics. Trends that take less than a century are still weather. Recently, i had to remind someone here that some recent "abrupt" climate transition (about 5 degrees Celsius) took 20,000 years to occur.
So, you are saying this happened _before_ that, therefore this happened _because_ of that? Is that really what you are saying? Study the graphs _carefully_ anew before you answer please.
So let's see. For 400,000 years it has consistently been temperature peaks are _followed_ by CO2 peaks. That makes it very clear the temporal direction of the forcing function of natural variations. If you study the typical delay between the two peaks the middle ages warm era is roughly at cause of the natural portion of the current CO2 peak.
And let me repeat the point, it is still weather up to century time spans, climate only becomes dominant at millennial and greater time spans.
And that is true if there is any global temperature change. However, that emitted CO2 then prevents long wave IR radiation escaping so the initially small amount of warming caused by external influences is amplified by the CO2 that is released over the longer term.
Historically most global temperature changes came from continental drift and variation in the Earth-Moon obital elements altering the time of closest approach to the sun and inclination of the ecliptic. But there have been times when bulk CO2 emission has warmed the Earth in the past.
The flip side is that if you put enough new CO2 into the atmosphere that will in itself cause warming and that warming will go on to release more natural CO2 from oceanic sources and methane from the permafrost tundra or if we are very unlucky the seabed clathrates. The last time this happened and with devastating effect was during the Deccan Traps flood basalt eruption.
Your specious objections are dealt with in simple terms on the grist website:
formatting link
Your reasoning is based on a fallacy. Showing that A causes B does NOT rule out the possibility that B causes A. We have mechanisms for how it works in both directions. Incidentally externally induced warming only causes CO2 to increase if the oceans have saturated - otherwise the increased reaction rate of warm C4 plant photosynthesis would win out.
And incidentally at the moment it is very clear that the oceans are not yet saturated with CO2 so that only about 60% of the stuff we emit stays in the atmosphere. The rest dissolves in the oceans. This is starting to change as some of the southern oceans are almost saturated - at least unable to accept much more due to changing wind patterns.
Over that period the periodic variations you can see in your graph are the ice ages, caused by changes in insolation from orbital changes AIUI. So here it is the temperature changes that precede the CO2 changes. The CO2 is one of the effects that adds some positive feedback into the system, amplifying the tiny insolation changes into those 10'C swings.
The current situation is different. Here we are adding CO2 directly. So the temperature rise due to added CO2 is delayed; the temperature rise follows the CO2 rise.
Was this "warm era" a global phenomenon? If so I suppose this ought to add some extra CO2 too. But we *know* we are burning fossil fuel, and we know pretty well now how much CO2 we are adding to the atmosphere. I am not sure what you are saying. That the current CO2 rise is simply due to previous warming, but the CO2 we have created ourselves is different and disappears somehow so it doesn't count?
A purely qualitative argument, which falls flat on its face when you look at the numbers. The current level of atmopsheric C02 - 385ppm - is roughly 100ppm higher than atmospheric CO2 has been at even the peaks of the previous interglacials, and higher than any atmospheric CO2 level acheived in the last 20 million years'
It also ignores the Suess effect, which makes it perfectly clear that the extra CO2 in the atmopshere hasn't come out of solution in the ocean, but rather from our burning of fossil carbon, which doesn't contain any C-14.
formatting link
Ever heard of the Younger Dyas?
formatting link
If the atmospheric circulation hits a tipping point, the transistion can be quite rapid.
Climategate doesn't show evidence of cheating. It does include e-mail which - if taken out of context and read with a sufficiently jaundiced eye - can be understood to use a form of words that might imply cheating, but that is a far as it goes.
Which is far enough to satisfy credulous conspiracy theory freeaks, like Ravinghorde.
...
Meaning that the Argo project started later than it should have done, and with fewer free-floating buoys. He is deploring a failure in the funding of science, rather than a fault in the science itself.
The IPCC has made a prediction
"Climate model projections summarized in the latest IPCC report indicate that the global surface temperature will probably rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 =B0C (2.0 to 11.5 =B0F) during the twenty-first century."
The unidentified author doesn't like it, but that doesn't allow him to lie about it.
For a particularly bizarre definiton of the word "remotely".
But they cycle within fairly narrow limits, so fall out of any long term prediction as short term noise.
An un-dated quote from an unidentified climate sceptic, presumably harvested from a denialist web-site. It sounds a bit like Hendrik Tennekes, who is so enarmoured of his weather models that he can't see that climate models, which are much coarser, but not subject to the butterfly effect, are more useful for climate modellers
Ravinghorde has a passion for posting this kind of unattributed tirade as if it meant what he wants it to mean.
Human beings can learn to adapt to a variety of climates. Our food plants are less flexible, and we have developed a wide range of agricultural practices, based on a limited range of carefully slected and selectively bred food plants to allow our communities to thrive in different environments.
Your response - concentrating on human physiology and ingoring the human economy is the nonsense.
No they are climate predictions of the same sort that farmers make every year before they plant the crops that they hope and expect to profit from the unpredictable weather that they will experience over the next growing season.
The scientists who were silly enough to be persuaded to make them have presumably learned their lesson. The journalists involved in fishing for the predictions and making feature articles out of them probably haven't.
That has anything to do with "sour", "bummed-out" or anti-social"?
It is difficult to be enthusiastic or joyful when pointing out that a particular fallacy has been posted here repeatedly, and it is insultig to observe that the poster doesn't seem to be capable of learning from experience. Most of my posts do include helpful information, but people whose brains seem to host a number of denialist memes don't seem to see it that way.
Since the alternative that you seem to be contemplating is a life as a dedicated brown-nose, endorsing every nonsensical misconception that you want to broadcast. I think I'll keep looking.
Find one and post it. It is easier to work out how you've got the worng end of the stick when I know which stick you are grasping at.
Like I've said, if you enrich the plant environment with water, nitrate, phosphate and all the other nutrients so that CO2 becomes the limiting nutrient, more CO2 will give you more plant growth. This rarely practical.
Paleontolgy tells us that when atmospheric CO2 levels were higher (several thousand parts per million) plants adapted by having a lower density of stomata on the backs of their leaves, so that they could get all the CO2 they needed while losing less water by evaporation through the stomata.
Geez, it is a wonder that you can be a slow on the uptake as you are and still design saleable electronics. If you were as slow at picking up new information about electronics as you are about absorbing elementary botany, you would still be using only silicon transistors.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.