Posted on 05/31/2017 12:32:52 AM PDT by canuck_conservative
Volcanoes likewise get far trumped by the impact of the sun.
It is utterly meaningless to append the instrument data to the historical stuff! The gray background is labeled ‘Combined error’. It is most probably estimated error. In any case, every point that falls inside the band has the same probability of being the temperature that day!
1st year physics!
When we reach the “tipping point” can we have a party and forget about this insanity?
We have global terrorist that want to saw off heads, a monetary system on the verge of collapse, 3rd word countries arming themselves with nuclear weapons and somehow these “global warmists” want me to worry about cow farts? Really? They want to put that on my plate?
There’s been a scandal in both peer review and replicability of scientific research.
Peer review scandal: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to-retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/
Replicability:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778
Yet even the relatively small net amount of warming that you endorse may -- I emphasize MAY -- have enough adverse effects to be undesirable. If so, then why not seek to minimize and apply geoengineering against it?
I am no believer in global warming, yet neither will I disregard proven facts and the opinions of responsible experts. I have a skeptical but open mind on the subject and await better information and more credible analysis and opinion.
‘geoengineering’ - such a nice big word.
Who determines what would work?
What is the cost of a ‘MAYbe’?
How does one gain unanimous worldwide consensus?
WHO does the enforcing?
OK!! Everybody pay attention!
Lesson for today:
1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.
2. The sun is a giant nuclear furnace that controls the climates of all its planets.
3. The earth is one of the sun’s planets.
4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.
5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.
Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?
Worldwide human CO2 production was about 30 Gt per year in 2012: https://www.iea.org/media/statistics/topics/emissions/CO2_Emissions_Overview.pdf See fig 3
Meanwhile volcanic production of carbon is 0.04 to 0.05 Gt per year which is 0.15 to 0.18 Gt of CO2 http://www.csun.edu/~hmc60533/CSUN_311/article_references/Sc_Feb93_GlobalCO2Budget.pdf
That is, there is NO clear, NO direct, NO scientifically-proven linkage between human CO2 production and climate change
That might be a more reasonable claim, but not based on volcanoes. Would have to be biosphere particularly oceanic.
Man’s CO2 amounts to just 0.00136% of the atmosphere
CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere. manmade is 0.012% of the atmosphere
Temperatures always rise first- then 800 or so years later CO2 rises
that's true and then the temperatures rise more and the CO2 rises more after that. If the current rise in CO2 were due to natural warming, then there would have have been at least a 10C rise in ocean temperatures about 800 years ago.
The average CO2 molecule absorbs IR but before it can reemit an IR photon it bumps into an O2 or N2 and transfers that energy. That warms the bulk atmosphere. It is the reason you can go outside and not instantly freeze from conduction to a super cold bulk atmosphere.
Not particularly. The manmade drop in pH is about 0.02 pH units per decade: http://www.biogeosciences.net/12/1223/2015/ so not a particular concern in the short run because that is far less than natural fluctuations.
And 93,000,000 miles away. Solar energy is important and fluctuates a bit, but the red herring by the alarmists is that solar energy is all that matters. Your post reinforces that red herring. In fact solar activity modulates the weather. Higher solar activity corresponds with less meridional heat flow, thus the earth cools less, thus global warming.
Solar activity in the second half of the 20th century was the highest in centuries: http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/#plots see the plot with the red line. That solar activity was certainly a factor in the observed global warming. It's hard to say how much of a factor.
Most likely it is a net benefit. As the best evidence look at the death rate in summer months and compare that to winter months: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/MortFinal2006_WorktableIV_part1.pdf More warming will lower mortality here in the US.
In any case there is very solid science showing much warmer temperatures than the present day during the Holocene Optimum from 7,000 to 3,000 years ago. Those temperatures did not lead to catastrophe, but the opposite. They led to the blossoming of humanity.
Oh my god, Jim! We have to stop those volcanoes!
Other measures, like open ocean fertilization with iron and other minerals, seem to have few drawbacks with the additional benefit of increasing fish stocks. So also do more reflective roofs seem to reduce both heat absorption and AC demand. And who can be against planting more trees to green up urban areas?
Dicier proposals tend to aim at wide-scale carbon capture installations, perhaps powered by dedicated nuclear reactors. Weather and regional climate modification are even more controversial. The semi-arid Saheel in sub-Saharan Africa might be converted to forest by water retention measures and opportunistic cloud-seeding.
The most controversial schemes seem to be those for increasing global cloud cover or using sulfur dioxide to reflect more infra red back into space. This might be done by setting out fleets of automated ocean vessels that take up sea water and spray it out as a fine mist, or injecting sulfur dioxide at altitude using large balloon lofted hoses.
The most visionary projects are for massive orbiting sun shades, perhaps coupled with solar power being generated and transmitted back to earth by microwaves.
These and similar ideas are mostly scorned and rejected by the environmental community even as they claim that global warming amounts to an existential emergency. If there really were such an emergency in the world's general understanding, the necessary scientific and technical work could be performed, and the financing and international approvals secured.
I follow all this with science geek interest and hearty skepticism as to global warming. I emphasize again that my view is skepticism, not adamant disbelief.
The question recurs though: what will be the effect of permanently shifting the ph balance toward the acid end of the scale? Eventually, adverse effects will make themselves felt as the ocean’s CO2 load continues to increase. When, where, and how is this process projected to end?
Wasting one penny on it is a crime against humanity. Spending money on a hoax is plan stupid and evil.
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.