OMG Now CO2 caused the Dust Bowl
(graph courtesy of AlGore.com)
Now that was a nicely presented report, much more believable, and pretty much the same information as Team Gore presented, but then again it doesn't do anything to motivate or panic. Surprising that the oceans are such huge CO2 emitters, wonder how we are going to control them. Still believe that what is happening is mostly a natural event, and will continue to do it's thing, regardless of the tax and cap proposals. Pretty sure the environmental changes won't be near as bad, as the economic ones AGW will inflict on us this summer, or next time it warms up...
You should try Firefox browser, really helps with spelling and typos...
Brownout there is a reason you make me smile and feel confident about what I do understand.
What if the recent temp rise is caused by all the wind generators slowing down wind speed ?
Brownout- you got to chillout guy.
Every time a graph or chart is posted all that is shown is temp vs CO2, the graph would only be scientifically viable if it showed ALL the gases!
Like I said before, it's always CO2's fault, because "they" will be able to control the CO2 producing commodities.
Please tell us what YOU are doing to lower your carbon footprint.
If the oceans release CO2 when they warm, then the way to control that is to stop warming in the first place. The oceans will stop warming, and thus will cease releasing increasing levels of CO2. See how easy that was? Increasing CO2 release from the oceans with increasing temperature is a feed-forward effect, which is one of the things the models warn about. That gives rise to the "tipping point", where rapid increase in climate change might occur. Water vapor might mitigate the problem somewhat by increasing earth's albedo, but that ignores the fact that water vapor is a greenhouse gas, and as such, its total effect might be neutral or even to continue to make things hotter. The models are consistently being tested, refined and retested. Data showing increasing temperature that correlates with increasing CO2 appear to validate the models. DOE estimates 23GT CO2 produced annually by man, of which 11.7GT is retained in the atmosphere and not absorbed. That accounts for the total rise in CO2 in the atmosphere.
Now seriously guys haven't you figured out now that in global warming world CO2 IS THE ONLY GAS THAT MATTERS.
Heres how it works.
Water vapor and its 70%+ influence in climate effects is irrelevant.
The other mixed gasses associated with another 15% of the green house effects are irrelevant.
The sun providing energy for 99.9999% of our weather and climates actions is irrelevant.
The oceans natural changes in its circulation patterns and ability to transfer massive amounts of thermal energy around the planet to different places at different times are irrelevant.
All past geological and natural records of any time periods that where possibly equal to or warmer than it is now or had similar possible CO2 levels are irrelevant.
The rest of the solar system showing possible indications that it too has been warming up for some reason is irrelevant.
So basically the other 99.99% of the stuff that was already there that influences the climate doesn't matter. It all comes down to that .01% of CO2 in the atmosphere we humans could be responsible for being it and thats all!
Its simply not comprehensible to the average person who is not in some way at least slightly "special" or "gifted" in a specific and unique way to ever be able to understand the intricacies involved. It at times could appear that if you dont have OCD or have not had a stoke of some sort you cant possibly understand the logic and thusly can't play the CO2 = global warming game.
So for the rest of us global warming looks sort of like Santa Clause, the Easter bunny, or a religion that is not of your following. Only if you truly believe in it then just maybe you will get your wish. And just as long as you dont look to hard at what you actually got, how it got there, and or what and who may have been behind the scenes to make it appear real to you.
But thats just what seems like a possible and plausible explanation anyway but unfortunately I dont have a hockey puck graph to back it up so its not valid in some "scientific" circles.
(and excuse my misuse of punctuation in some areas. I was a D student in its "proper" use after all.)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?