El Cid Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 If CO2 is the only driver in warming then where did it come from to create the warming seen in the medieval period? CO2 is NOT the only cause of climate change. Gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect include: Water vapor, Carbon dioxide (CO2), Methane, Nitrous oxide and Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). If anyone on the forum has a computer the size of a house, perhaps they can calculate the efects for all those different gases? And then calculate the other effects of warming, the expansion of the oceans, the albedo effect and much more. http://climate.nasa.gov/causes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Grindley Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 the expansion of the oceans, the albedo effect Those bits are easy. The oceans will expan upwards by 7cm for each degree of warming between now and 2113. Assuming a straight line. The change in overall albedo will be negliable, as long as the snow cover does not increase, as almost all bits vunerable to meltinghave done so. Places such as the Hymilayan glaciers are utterly insignificant one even a local scale let alone a global one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 Assuming what is a straight line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 Assuming what is a straight line? I think he is describing a linear rather than an exponential relationship between the variables.Hope this helps as Maths is so tricky:hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 If CO2 is the only driver in warming then where did it come from to create the warming seen in the medieval period? The lack of a good explanation does not mean that only the poor explanation that is left can be the correct explanation. More likely it means that you don't know enough to speculate about the cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saunaman Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Just started looking into this , and get the impression that CO2 , that harmless gas that we all breathe out ( and which is also a by-product of home - brewing ) has been jumped upon and demonised by those with a green ( and financially beneficial ) agenda . Carbon dioxide is a plant nutrient , so why aren't we harnessing it for the benefit of UK agriculture , as the Dutch seem to be doing ( Telegraph 14/12/09) whilst at the same time bringing down emissions ? Surely both industry and agriculture could benefit from CCS ( Carbon dioxide capture and storage ) . Co2 is used in the food industry ( to make bread rise ) the soft drinks industry , refridgeration ( think dry ice ) and so the list goes on . CO2 has been with us since the beginning of time and surely , if properly harnessed , could be a real asset . But I guess most people will just keep thinking "global warming blahh blahh " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 The lack of a good explanation does not mean that only the poor explanation that is left can be the correct explanation. More likely it means that you don't know enough to speculate about the cause. So why do you "speculate"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Take notice of those weather experts, the ones who with all the funding and technology behind them, couldn't organize a p... up in a brewery, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2301304/Our-2012-forecasts-feeble-admits-Met-Office-Organisation-says-predicting-dry-weather-helpful.html If only, http://adsoftheworld.com/media/print/carlsberg_weather Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 So why do you "speculate"? I don't. I haven't suggested a mechanism for global temperature change. I've just pointed out that a) global temperature change itself is suspect, and that b) if it is happening, trying to pin it on humans is very shaky science and trying to pin it on CO2 specifically is even less rigorous. What speculation did you think I'd done? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
convert Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 The rats are jumping ship. Starting with Tim Yeo. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100219218/trougher-yeo-recants-on-global-warming/ Here's what he (Tim Yeo) said in 2009: "The dying gasps of the deniers will be put to bed. In five years time, no one will argue about a man-made contribution to climate change.” And here, less than five years on, is what he is saying now: “Although I think the evidence that the climate is changing is now overwhelming, the causes are not absolutely clear. There could be natural causes, natural phases that are taking place.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now