CO2 passes Symbolic 400 PPM mark.

[marywollstonecraft]

1- what are you basing that on?
2- the proof is in the pudding, and you know it's good when you taste it. For going on 17 years the temperatures have been violating the hypothesis based on the models, so why are they pushing a hypothesis that's invalidated by the data??

.

your understanding of this issue (or lack thereof) may well be based on the fact that you rely on dubious sources of information.

 

[code1211]

so you would say that because it has been proven that some people who have never smoked have cardiovascular disease, then smoking is not implicated in any cases of cardiovascular disease?



interesting ...


The Modern Temperature Trend

PAGES: Two Millennia Global Temperature Reconstruction confirms Hockeystick | Weltenwetter 2013

Are you agreeing and presenting support for that agreement? It's hard to tell. This graph combines about ten proxies and the opinion of the science is that the temperature for the world has risen by about 0.7 degrees in 2000 years.

http://images.debatepolitics.com/attach/jpg.gif


I'm not understanding what cardiovascular disease has to do with the climate. Maybe you could expand on that or just talk about the climate and how changes in the past due to natural causes prove that current changes must be forced by man. (?)

 

[BmanMcfly]

your understanding of this issue (or lack thereof) may well be based on the fact that you rely on dubious sources of information.

Ya... Dubious sources like the raw data.

That partially addressed one of the two issues though, gonna work through the rest?

 

[code1211]

yes it is. I can only guess at why you missed that.

Perhaps you could make it more clear?

 

[BmanMcfly]

http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/overlayco2.png

I dunno, looks like 2 of 3 projections overestimated the impact of co2, and it looks like co2 is not the driver at all as the split between co2's rate of increase and actual temperatures continues to defy the hypothesis...

 

[Lord of Planar]

Who cares that CO2 is at 400 ppm? Maybe the plants do!

One thing I have pointed out to show that the alarmists are wrong has to do with the radiative forcing they use. They are claiming a total positive forcing of about 2.8 watts per square meter, and with counter effects, a net change of about 1.6 watts per square meter.

How is it that the alarmists violate the Stefan–Boltzmann law?

Note... Law, not theory or hypothesis!

They claim this increased 1.6 W/m^2 forcing has increased the temperature by about 0.7 degrees. Let me break this down.

It is agreed that the net downward forcing that warms the earth is under 500 watt/m^2 average. Different earth energy budgets will have it slightly different, but one has it at 492 W/m^2. For this power, if we assign 15 degrees average, than we have 288.15 kelvin. 288.85 K would be 0.7 degrees warmer.

(288.85/288.15)^4 x 492 = 496.8 W/m^2

Please note, for radiative forcing to increase temperatures by 0.7 degrees, the forcing needs to increase by 4.8 W/^2. Not a mere 1.6W.m^2.

If the IPCC AR4 is correct is assessing that radiative forcing has increased by 1.6 W/m^2, then the temperature increase is only 0.23 degrees. With CO2 claimed at 1.66 W/m^2, that is 0.24 degrees.

 

[mbig]

 

[Lord of Planar]

OK, I watched it.

What is the point of the video?

Part of the summary at the end:

It is not the proof of physics of greenhouses gasses. It's evidence of the effects they are already having.

Where is the factual evidence that the increase in CO2 has warmed beyond natural forces? "Already having" is not given a timeframe.

Just the hockeystick?

 

[code1211]

OK, I watched it.

What is the point of the video?

Part of the summary at the end:



Where is the factual evidence that the increase in CO2 has warmed beyond natural forces? "Already having" is not given a timeframe.

Just the hockeystick?

I watched a show on the hazards of Global Warming and this particular Climate Scientist noted that the link of CO2 and temperature globally was that the temperature change caused the CO2 change.

It was one comment in a litany of predictions of dire consequence.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I watched a show on the hazards of Global Warming and this particular Climate Scientist noted that the link of CO2 and temperature globally was that the temperature change caused the CO2 change.

It was one comment in a litany of predictions of dire consequence.

These people are experts a push poll style science.