Posted on 06/27/2006 9:34:22 AM PDT by cogitator
Fine with me, but I wonder why you would think that a 100 ppm increase in global atmospheric CO2 concentrations would have no significant effects at all.
I probably didn't quite get your point. I asked because hurricane winds do cool the surface ocean due to mixing. There was an event a couple of years ago when one hurricane hit the cooler "wake" of a previous hurricane and lost significant strength over the cooler waters. But I think your point was about something else.
Accurate as far as I can tell to a century or in timescale. Comparing any past century averages to the past centuries increase does not provide a lot of data points. Comparing ice cores to CO2 measurements made other ways like in the atmosphere is silly.
Mixing cooler water to the surface doesn't change the earth's energy balance. BUt concentrated convection does do that by suppressing wider convection and high clouds, less upper atmospheric water vapor, etc.
On second thought, it could lower the amount of heat radiated to space and warm the earth overall. I'm not sure how much, something to research.
I completely disagree.
I'm not sure what DE08 and DSS are, but all of the other points are from ice cores. The black line is the Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 measurement curve.
This figure shows it a little better. There's another better one that I can't seem to find at the moment.
Exactly. They insist -- dishonestly -- that it's a given that man causes global warming.
Your pictures are highly deceptive. They imply ice core resolution that is simply impossible in any sample other than a modern (uncompacted) one. The first one overlays measurements so you can't even see if there any ice measurements underneath (not that they matter). The second is pretty lacking, I'm sure you can find better. In the meantime, here's a better source, showing error bars on most of the samples. Note the absence of a hockey stick.
I have a couple of problems with this. One, none of the "global warming" theories explains why Mars' polar caps are melting nor why the storms on Saturn have become more intense. To date, neither astronomers nor skulking by the Hubble telescope have shown any evidence of either SUVs or humans on Mars.
Also, Dr. Sallie Baliunas explains that of the 11 gases that comprise the so-called "Greenhouse Gases", we understand the influences of fewer than half, including CO2. And, of the gases that we DO understand, we still don't fully understand how they interact or affect the earth's environment.
It's not a surprise that ice core CO2 data from older periods has decreased temporal resolution. But the concentrations of CO2 measured in the bubbles are accurate.
Where's your figure? Here's another one (with error bars; this might be the one you were planning to post):
Now that we've seen it three times, I guess we understand it. ;-)
The last one is not a scientific analysis, I have studied the (woefully inadequate) Mars temperature data and see no global warming or cooling. I believe the ice cap melting is, most likely, a local effect.
I don't know about Saturn; read this about Mars:
Also, Dr. Sallie Baliunas explains that of the 11 gases that comprise the so-called "Greenhouse Gases", we understand the influences of fewer than half, including CO2.
The statements of Dr. Baliunas, an accomplished scientist and also a noted climate change skeptic, should be compared to the mainstream scientific opinion.
I agree that a complete and thorough determination is still a way off.
My two postings beats your single posting.
It is my understanding that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere reaches a saturation point, a point that after which you can add all the CO2 you like to the atmosphere and it will not increase temperatures any further. It is my understanding that the maximum warming that could occur with additional CO2 is about 1 degree celsius. You could take CO2 all the way to 6000ppm at which point it would become letahl to humans and you would still only have the one degree of warming.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe I am.
Byrd station is not the GISP or Vostok CO2 data. The small figure below kinda shows how the Vostok record splices into the modern era. Essentially when CO2 rose at the end of the last glacial period, it went up to ~280 ppm, and that's where it stayed until the slight rise began in the mid-1700s/early 1800s.
Let's see... Global warming caused "about half". How much does that leave for "natural cycles"? I think I can handle the math. It would be "about half". Somehow the "about half" caused by natural cycles is a "minor factor" but the "about half" caused by presumed global warming is something very significant.
If it wasn't for the dire consequences of governments acting on such nonsense, the obvious bias of this article would be amusing.
I want them to tell me why it is 82 degrees here today. In all my life in NM there has never been an 82 day in summer w/o rain and heavy cloud cover. The sun is shining and it's quite cool out there, it should be 99 or 100 degrees by now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.