Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Paloma_55
However, you have no data that the "stable climate period" we are seeing is not due to that CO2. How does C02 affect climate dynamics??

CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has been about 280 ppm for about 9,000 years since the end of the glacial period until about 1750, when it started to increase, probably due to land use changes. After 1850 the increase accelerated, due to industrialization and fossil fuel burning.

CO2 levels lag the initial increase in temperature at glacial-interglacial transitions -- these major transitions are likely caused by Milankovitch cycle solar forcing. Climate science indicates that the increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere initiates a positive feedback cycle that drives temperatures higher.

40 posted on 07/06/2006 9:06:37 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]


To: cogitator

Another way to say this is that major increases began when direct measurement began; do we have an observer problem here? :)


47 posted on 07/06/2006 9:14:29 AM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]

To: cogitator
Climate science indicates that the increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere initiates a positive feedback cycle that drives temperatures higher.

Ya see, this is the kind of stuff that gets me riled.

With all due respect, simply attributing the speculative association of C02 with a positive feedback global thermal mechanism to "Climate Science" is about as valid as claiming it is based upon the the number of hairs on a goat's chin.

"Climate science" is not a "thing" that has absoluteness to it. It is a "field" that has many experts who often disagree and often put forward scientific theories, that are later disproven.

Take any branch of science, and show me where they have gotten it right on the first pass..or the second..or the third???

Climate science my ass. I am not going to change my lifestyle one iota for climate science, or for those who promote it as if they have a 100% understanding of how it works. I prefer to worry about a meteor crashing into us, or a renegade band of aliens, or perhaps a retrovirus taking out mankind. There are too many reasonable sources of global destruction to put your money on CO2.
81 posted on 07/06/2006 2:09:10 PM PDT by Paloma_55 (I may be a hateful bigot, but I still love you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson