Reality check: volcanic CO2 emissions

[jillery]

From the article:

<https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/how-much-co2-does-a-single-volcano-emit-bbc045be015d>

<http://tinyurl.com/y8wrqc5h>

*********************************************
When you realize that volcanism contributes 645 million tons of CO2
per year—and it becomes clearer if you write it as 0.645 billion tons
of CO2 per year—compared to humanity’s 29 billion tons per year, it’s
overwhelmingly clear what’s caused the carbon dioxide increase in
Earth’s atmosphere since 1750.
*********************************************

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[William Hyde]

On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 2:34:52 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> From the article:
>
> <https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/how-much-co2-does-a-single-volcano-emit-bbc045be015d>
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/y8wrqc5h>
>
> *********************************************
> When you realize that volcanism contributes 645 million tons of CO2
> per year—and it becomes clearer if you write it as 0.645 billion tons
> of CO2 per year—compared to humanity’s 29 billion tons per year, it’s
> overwhelmingly clear what’s caused the carbon dioxide increase in
> Earth’s atmosphere since 1750.
> *********************************************

Ah, the zeroth line of defense for deniers - not only does CO2 not affect climate, but it's not even due to humans that it is rising! Is anyone on this group still pushing that?

Not to mention that the CO2 record shows no significant upward bump after a large eruption, such as El Chichon or Pinatubo. It's in the noise.

William Hyde

[jillery]

On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 12:47:43 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
<wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 2:34:52 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> From the article:
>>
>> <https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/how-much-co2-does-a-single-volcano-emit-bbc045be015d>
>>
>> <http://tinyurl.com/y8wrqc5h>
>>
>> *********************************************
>> When you realize that volcanism contributes 645 million tons of CO2
>> per year—and it becomes clearer if you write it as 0.645 billion tons
>> of CO2 per year—compared to humanity’s 29 billion tons per year, it’s
>> overwhelmingly clear what’s caused the carbon dioxide increase in
>> Earth’s atmosphere since 1750.
>> *********************************************
>
>Ah, the zeroth line of defense for deniers - not only does CO2 not affect climate, but it's not even due to humans that it is rising! Is anyone on this group still pushing that?

Yes, some have on occasion expressed doubts about atmospheric CO2's
ability to cause global warming, and of humanity's ability to
significantly increase atmospheric CO2.

But that's ok, there are members of Trump's administration who have
said similarly, so it must be true.

>Not to mention that the CO2 record shows no significant upward bump after a large eruption, such as El Chichon or Pinatubo. It's in the noise.
>
>William Hyde

[derdagian1]

Obviously

[derdagian1]

Let's throw some of them into the pool, cause Hank Jr. Did at his Party!

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 12:47:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by William Hyde
<wthyd...@gmail.com>:

Since that's essentially what the quote says (humans
contribute ~45x as much CO2 as vulcanism; 29/0.645) , I fail
to see who you're arguing against. Perhaps you mistakenly
read "0.645" as "645"?
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:aofdkc9u9kobf5ed3...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 12:47:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by William Hyde
> <wthyd...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 2:34:52 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>>> From the article:
>>>
>>> <https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/how-much-co2-does-a-single-volcano-emit-bbc045be015d>
>>>
>>> <http://tinyurl.com/y8wrqc5h>
>>>
>>> *********************************************
>>> When you realize that volcanism contributes 645 million tons of CO2

>>> per year-and it becomes clearer if you write it as 0.645 billion tons
>>> of CO2 per year-compared to humanity's 29 billion tons per year, it's

>>> overwhelmingly clear what's caused the carbon dioxide increase in
>>> Earth's atmosphere since 1750.
>>> *********************************************
>>
>>Ah, the zeroth line of defense for deniers - not only does CO2 not affect climate, but it's not even due to humans that it is rising! Is anyone on this group still pushing that?
>>
>>Not to mention that the CO2 record shows no significant upward bump after a large eruption, such as El Chichon or Pinatubo. It's in the noise.
>
> Since that's essentially what the quote says (humans
> contribute ~45x as much CO2 as vulcanism; 29/0.645) , I fail
> to see who you're arguing against. Perhaps you mistakenly
> read "0.645" as "645"?
> --

Only a very small part of naturally produced CO2 come from volcanoes. Three down.

[jillery]

On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 11:01:08 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 12:47:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by William Hyde
><wthyd...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 2:34:52 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>>> From the article:
>>>
>>> <https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/how-much-co2-does-a-single-volcano-emit-bbc045be015d>
>>>
>>> <http://tinyurl.com/y8wrqc5h>
>>>
>>> *********************************************
>>> When you realize that volcanism contributes 645 million tons of CO2
>>> per year—and it becomes clearer if you write it as 0.645 billion tons
>>> of CO2 per year—compared to humanity’s 29 billion tons per year, it’s
>>> overwhelmingly clear what’s caused the carbon dioxide increase in
>>> Earth’s atmosphere since 1750.
>>> *********************************************
>>
>>Ah, the zeroth line of defense for deniers - not only does CO2 not affect climate, but it's not even due to humans that it is rising! Is anyone on this group still pushing that?
>>
>>Not to mention that the CO2 record shows no significant upward bump after a large eruption, such as El Chichon or Pinatubo. It's in the noise.
>
>Since that's essentially what the quote says (humans
>contribute ~45x as much CO2 as vulcanism; 29/0.645) , I fail
>to see who you're arguing against. Perhaps you mistakenly
>read "0.645" as "645"?

My impression is he's supporting the quote and opposing "the zeroth
line of defense for deniers". Of course, I could be wrong.

[William Hyde]

On Sunday, June 18, 2017 at 2:04:52 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 12:47:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by William Hyde
> <wthyd...@gmail.com>:
>
> >On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 2:34:52 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> >> From the article:
> >>
> >> <https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/how-much-co2-does-a-single-volcano-emit-bbc045be015d>
> >>
> >> <http://tinyurl.com/y8wrqc5h>
> >>
> >> *********************************************
> >> When you realize that volcanism contributes 645 million tons of CO2
> >> per year—and it becomes clearer if you write it as 0.645 billion tons
> >> of CO2 per year—compared to humanity’s 29 billion tons per year, it’s
> >> overwhelmingly clear what’s caused the carbon dioxide increase in
> >> Earth’s atmosphere since 1750.
> >> *********************************************
> >
> >Ah, the zeroth line of defense for deniers - not only does CO2 not affect climate, but it's not even due to humans that it is rising! Is anyone on this group still pushing that?
> >
> >Not to mention that the CO2 record shows no significant upward bump after a large eruption, such as El Chichon or Pinatubo. It's in the noise.
>
> Since that's essentially what the quote says (humans
> contribute ~45x as much CO2 as vulcanism; 29/0.645) , I fail
> to see who you're arguing against. Perhaps you mistakenly
> read "0.645" as "645"?

I'm not, in fact, arguing against anything Jillery or her source said.

But as at least one "skeptic" here is a big, big, fan of graphs, I thought it might be useful to point out that the graphs confirm Jillery's point.

William Hyde

[Öö Tiib]

That is correct, Glenn. Natural carbon cycle is about 750 gigatons so man
made 29 gigatons is like 4% of it. However if nature can't absorb that additional 4% then it is building up over time.

[jillery]

On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 11:41:13 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Yes, that's what the article says. Did you read it?

[jillery]

On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 13:15:22 -0700 (PDT), 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
wrote:

You and Glenn and the article refer to three different quantities.
Glenn speaks of volcanoes only. The article totals estimated carbon
from active and inactive volcanoes, volcanic lakes, hydrothermal
vents, and mid-ocean ridges. Your number (750 gigatons) appears to
be an estimated amount of carbon in the atmosphere, and not the amount
of all carbon active in the carbon cycle.

This article gives a list of other carbon sources:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle>

Perhaps someday, on a timetable of his own choosing and
unrelated to the needs of this discussion, Glenn will say what his
"three down" means.

[Öö Tiib]

May be I got wrong number but I have noted down that CO2 annually emitted
by natural sources is so large from somewhere. Note that amount of C
emitted with CO2 is more than 3 times less.

>
> This article gives a list of other carbon sources:
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle>

The Wikipedia does not seemingly give annual emissions from those sources
but we can find some other. See for example that report:
https://www.cels.anl.gov/events/workshops/extremecomputing/biology/files/CarbonCycle012609HR.pdf
Page 4:
To atmosphere from plants 60 gigatonnes of carbon.
To atmosphere from soils 60 gigatonnes of carbon.
To atmosphere from oceans 90 gigatonnes of carbon.
Total anthropogenic carbon emissions is 9.1 gigatonnes in same table.
Seems quite reliable report and 96%/4% (that I claimed) seems about
correct rate by it.

>
> Perhaps someday, on a timetable of his own choosing and
> unrelated to the needs of this discussion, Glenn will say what his
> "three down" means.

Sounded like something from baseball so I took that it is like victory
declaration ... "I won".

[Daniel S. Riley]

Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee> writes:
> On Monday, 19 June 2017 00:04:52 UTC+3, jillery wrote:
>> You and Glenn and the article refer to three different quantities.
>> Glenn speaks of volcanoes only. The article totals estimated carbon
>> from active and inactive volcanoes, volcanic lakes, hydrothermal
>> vents, and mid-ocean ridges. Your number (750 gigatons) appears to
>> be an estimated amount of carbon in the atmosphere, and not the amount
>> of all carbon active in the carbon cycle.
>
> May be I got wrong number but I have noted down that CO2 annually emitted
> by natural sources is so large from somewhere.

I believe that's correct, the total CO2 annual flux through the
atmosphere is about that size (both emissions and absorption).

> Note that amount of C emitted with CO2 is more than 3 times less.

Excellent point--you have to be careful about tons of C vs. tons of CO2,
and also annual rates vs. resevoir size.

>> This article gives a list of other carbon sources:
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle>
>
> The Wikipedia does not seemingly give annual emissions from those sources
> but we can find some other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere

and the figures therein agree (after accounting for the C vs. CO2
difference).

> See for example that report:
> https://www.cels.anl.gov/events/workshops/extremecomputing/biology/files/CarbonCycle012609HR.pdf
> Page 4:
> To atmosphere from plants 60 gigatonnes of carbon.
> To atmosphere from soils 60 gigatonnes of carbon.
> To atmosphere from oceans 90 gigatonnes of carbon.
> Total anthropogenic carbon emissions is 9.1 gigatonnes in same table.
> Seems quite reliable report and 96%/4% (that I claimed) seems about
> correct rate by it.

Yes, that's about correct, and in bulk about half that 4% is staying in
the atmosphere, so 50 years of emissions doubles the bulk CO2 in the
atmosphere (note that it's important to distinguish between the bulk
residence and the residence of the individual molecules, which are very
different things).

-dan

[jillery]

On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 15:39:24 -0700 (PDT), 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>

wrote:

>On Monday, 19 June 2017 00:04:52 UTC+3, jillery wrote:

>> On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 13:15:22 -0700 (PDT), ? Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>

If you're thinking of how much CO2 goes into the atmosphere from
sources like rotting vegetation, I have no doubt that number is quite
large. However, almost all of those sources are also sinks. The
carbon in rotting vegetation came from the atmosphere. It causes no
net change on average. That's why it's called a carbon *cycle*. Look
at the Wikipedia article again.

The carbon from human sources and volcanoes are different from those
sources. They both *add* carbon into the atmosphere from long-term
carbon sinks deep underground. Yes, that additional carbon will
eventually go back undergound, as ocean organisms absorb it and sink
to the bottom and get buried by tectonics, but not for millions of
years.

That's why AGW deniers try to blame volcanic sources for global
warming. As my cited article points out, the numbers put the lie to
that claim.

There was a time when atmospheric CO2 was higher in the past. What
makes CO2 concentrations scary is not how much but how fast. Even
though there have been times in the past when atmospheric CO2 was
greater, the rate of change appears to be unprecedented.

>> This article gives a list of other carbon sources:
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle>
>
>The Wikipedia does not seemingly give annual emissions from those sources
>but we can find some other. See for example that report:
>https://www.cels.anl.gov/events/workshops/extremecomputing/biology/files/CarbonCycle012609HR.pdf
>Page 4:
>To atmosphere from plants 60 gigatonnes of carbon.
>To atmosphere from soils 60 gigatonnes of carbon.
>To atmosphere from oceans 90 gigatonnes of carbon.
>Total anthropogenic carbon emissions is 9.1 gigatonnes in same table.
>Seems quite reliable report and 96%/4% (that I claimed) seems about
>correct rate by it.
>
>>
>> Perhaps someday, on a timetable of his own choosing and
>> unrelated to the needs of this discussion, Glenn will say what his
>> "three down" means.
>
>Sounded like something from baseball so I took that it is like victory
>declaration ... "I won".

Now it makes sense. I'm glad I didn't have to rely on Glenn's
timetable.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 11:41:13 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

>Only a very small part of naturally produced CO2 come from volcanoes. Three down.

Anything to say relevant to what I posted? No? OK.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 14:49:39 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

I agree that he's in opposition to that "line of defense",
but it was my impression that he thought the quote supported
that "line of defense", for the reason I noted.

>Of course, I could be wrong.

As could I.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 12:02:28 -0700 (PDT), the following

OK, my error. Thanks for the clarification.

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:5tvfkc1j4o7onr1qn...@4ax.com...

[jillery]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 10:40:14 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Cuts all ways, bubba.

And since you haven't replied yet, I hope you haven't forgotten to
schedule in your timetable to reveal how you think what I posted is
"dishonest", and what you think are the differences between hypotheses
and facts.

[jillery]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 09:49:11 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

The reason you noted is that Hyde said essentially what the quote
said. This is technically correct, but his statement could be
interpreted as either affirmation or objection. So instead, one's
impression actually depends on what one thinks Hyde means by "the

zeroth line of defense for deniers".

My impression is Hyde's latest post makes his point clear.

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:v4khkcd7ac6bo5s2o...@4ax.com...

You do so like to lie.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 10:40:14 -0700, the following appeared

Seven Up

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 03:34:51 -0400, the following appeared

Yes, and I acknowledged my error to him.

[Peter Nyikos]

Thank you for this very valuable piece of information. And thanks for
giving a reference in your subsequent reply to jillery.


Another issue is: just how much of global warming is attributable
to the increase in CO2? for instance, what about methane, a far
more potent greenhouse gas, produced by vast herds of cattle and
thus attributable to human agency, albeit indirectly.

But also, how much of it is due to changes in solar activity?
Take a look at the information on the "Little Ice Age" and the
Maunder Minimum associated with it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

CAUTION: The entry is highly illogical at one point, where it says:

no convincing mechanism for the solar activity to produce cold temperatures
has been proposed,[12][dubious – discuss]

Of course, it is the *reduction* in solar activity that would produce
a *reduction* in temperatures.

One needs to look at the data and reason from them directly, unless someone
produces plausible mechanisms.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina

[Ernest Major]

You're missing two other (and more) human contributions to CH4 - rice
paddies and losses in natural gas production and transmission.

http://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhouse-gases/methane-emissions

But see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_list_of_greenhouse_gases

>
> But also, how much of it is due to changes in solar activity?
> Take a look at the information on the "Little Ice Age" and the
> Maunder Minimum associated with it:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

According to best estimates, less that none of the current warming trend
is due to changes in solar activity.

>
> CAUTION: The entry is highly illogical at one point, where it says:
>
> no convincing mechanism for the solar activity to produce cold temperatures
> has been proposed,[12][dubious – discuss]
>
> Of course, it is the *reduction* in solar activity that would produce
> a *reduction* in temperatures.

In the context of the article there is an implicit "change" or
"reduction" in that sentence.

>
> One needs to look at the data and reason from them directly, unless someone
> produces plausible mechanisms.
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolina
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Steven Carlip]

On 6/20/17 1:43 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

[...]

> Another issue is: just how much of global warming is attributable
> to the increase in CO2? for instance, what about methane, a far
> more potent greenhouse gas, produced by vast herds of cattle and
> thus attributable to human agency, albeit indirectly.

See https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html. Carbon dioxide
accounts for about 80% of the increase in radiative forcing from
1990 to 2016, methane quite a bit less. (Methane is a more potent
greenhouse gas, but also remains in the atmosphere for a much
shorter length of timme, and decays to CO2.)

> But also, how much of it is due to changes in solar activity?

Essentially none. We have very accurate measurements of the energy
reaching the Earth from the Sun. There's a nice discussion at
https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm.

Steve Carlip

[eridanus]

visit this
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v493/n7433/fig_tab/nature11789_F2.html

or you cans see this one

<https://indico.cern.ch/event/52576/attachments/970791/1379192
/cern_colloquium_kirkby.pdf>

all the field is yours
eri

[jillery]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 01:21:06 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Where's the lie, liar?

[Daniel S. Riley]

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> writes:
> But also, how much of it is due to changes in solar activity?

Solar activity hasn't changed significantly over the last 50
years.

> Take a look at the information on the "Little Ice Age" and the
> Maunder Minimum associated with it:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum
>
> CAUTION: The entry is highly illogical at one point, where it says:
>
> no convincing mechanism for the solar activity to produce cold
> temperatures has been proposed,[12][dubious – discuss]
>
> Of course, it is the *reduction* in solar activity that would produce
> a *reduction* in temperatures.

It's poorly phrased, but I believe the point is that the decrease in
solar activity during the Maunder Minimum was, by itself, too small to
account for the little ice age, and also apparently lagged the start of
the LIA. For the MM to have played a substantial role in LIA, there
likely has to have been some kind of amplification mechanism, either
regional amplification, or climate sensitivity has to be at the high end
of the estimates.

-dan

[Steven Carlip]

The question was about present global warming. Are you under the
impression that all instances of climate change in the history of
the Earth must be identical? If not, why do you think your links
re relevant?

Steve Carlip

[eridanus]

Were you talking to me? How nice of you.
I have a large collection of graphics referring to the last thousand years.
In all those graphics, sometimes temperatures are rising and sometimes are
lowering. You can choose the part of a graphic you like best. One that
would predict predicts a catastrophic warming like 20 million years ago,
or other that is announcing the next glacial age.

When you take a part of curve to predict what happens next this is called extrapolating. It is like story of the milkmaid. With the money I would
get selling the milk, I would buy a hen. And with the eggs this hen would
provide I would go to the market and sell them; then I would get rich.
The milkmaid was extrapolating.

eri

[eridanus]

Oh, dear Daniel. Have we means to measure the output of the sun during
the period called LIA? Other than verify the water of the seas were colder?
Peter de Menocal was collecting mud from the bottom of some seas in diverse
parts of the planet. He has presented some curves of temperature for the
surface of some seas in past times.

The amplification mechanism you are thinking of... is something to amplify
cold?
Perhaps you are thinking about the famous GCRs or the scarcity of solar wind,
or perhaps lack magnetic fields arriving to the earth. In those cases there
are people that say the planet gets colder for some increase of clouds. They reason that more clouds means less radiation arriving to the surface of the
planet. This can be false, but looks logic.

Eri

[jillery]

Your post implicitly makes two excellent points, both of which have
been pointed out several times to Eridanus:

1) For purposes of arguing a POV, it's insufficient to post just
citations. Instead, one must also state one's POV, and explicate how
one thinks said citations support said POV. Failing that, respondents
are forced to guess, which allows one to play the "that's not what I
said" game.

2) Yes, the evidence suggests that some historical global climates
have been hotter than now. That does not mean the combination of
circumstances which caused said higher temperatures are at work now,
and the evidence suggests otherwise. OTOH this is the first time in
Earth's history when human numbers are large enough to affect global
climate (NOT just regional, NOT just weather). Projected CO2 levels
from human activity are comparable to some of those historical hotter
climates.

[eridanus]

You are presenting good arguments. But they are sort of personal. It is clear
so far as we know, we never had so much CO2 as now. The next question is if
it is real the argument that it is such an important heating agent. Not by
repeating a lot an argument it becomes real. So we are selling the skin of
the bear before hunting it. My argument is wait and see. Another 10 or 20
years and we would realize if there it keeps warming. Perhaps the CO2 is
a real warming agent. I am not sure it is. For what I had seen in the
graphics of Vostok Petit and others, when the temperature is lowering the
CO2 remain high up for a time. The CO2 is lowering later, as the temperature
had been going down for some thousands years.

Eri

[William Hyde]

On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 4:44:57 PM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:

>
> Another issue is: just how much of global warming is attributable
> to the increase in CO2? for instance, what about methane, a far
> more potent greenhouse gas, produced by vast herds of cattle and
> thus attributable to human agency, albeit indirectly.

The following is a look at the history of what we, over time, thought was the strength of the various climate drivers:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/the-evolution-of-radiative-forcing-bar-charts/

Things have changed since 1981 as models have improved and (perhaps more importantly) data has been accumulated, but CO2 remains the largest driver. The complex atmospheric chemistry of CH4 is much better understood now than it was in 1981 (the whole field of atmospheric chemistry has advanced dramatically) so it is given more heft now than then, but it was never considered irrelevant.

For those not keen on clicking, the drivers considered include CO2, CH4, O3, NH2 various CFCs, aerosols (including the adjustment of cloud amount and optical properties due to aerosol change, a difficult topic), albedo change due to land use, and solar constant change.

> But also, how much of it is due to changes in solar activity?

Some years ago Thomas Crowley ran a simple climate model driven by estimated forcings, including solar change, over the years 1000 AD - present. There was, however, no one reconstruction of variations in the solar constant available. For the various reconstructions used, solar constant variation explained as little as nine, and as much as 45% of the temperature record over the whole period. Aerosol loading by volcanos explained about 1/5 of the variance over most of the record, rising to about 50% in the little ice age. The conclusion was that the LIA is largely a forced response, with volcanos and solar forcing being jointly responsible. That solar was near-negligible could not be ruled out.

http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/people/guido/PHY2502/articles/climate-records/Crowley_2000.pdf

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/289/5477/270?sid=7e370789-66a9-43e5-af0d-8cb6e5e09cce

Now, there are various cautions to be noted here. He was working with an estimated value of solar change. It seems likely that the true solar change lies somewhere in the spectrum of results used, but we do not know that for certain.

Secondly, this is not the kind of model used, e.g. in forecasts for IPCC. However, it does mimic climate change over the period of the instrumental record, to which it was calibrated.

Similar work has now been done with more complex models, some of which is shown here:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/last-1000-years

and in references given therein.


William Hyde

[Burkhard]

That approach should work wonders if you ever have a car accident, and
the doctor says: Nah, we wait another 4 or 5 days, and then we'll know
for sure if that red stuff he's leaking all over the place was really
important

[Jonathan]

Why is it always assumed global warming is a bad thing?

For instance it should lead to dramatic increases in our
ability to grow food, it should open up new habitats and
make much needed mineral and energy resources more available.

Not saying my mind is make up either way, it's just that
this seems to be an assumption that hasn't been studied
nearly as much as whether change it occurring and why.

I'm just uncomfortable with the idea that an evolving
adaptive planet should suddenly be forced into chasing
some atmospheric numbers set by some committee.



s

[jillery]

And the answer for that has also been pointed out several times to
you.

[jillery]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 23:19:33 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

Kidding aside, Eridanus has posted several times that he doesn't
really care about AGW because he expects to die before its effects get
really bad.

[jillery]

The actual issue isn't just the changes, but also the rapidity of
these changes.

>For instance it should lead to dramatic increases in our
>ability to grow food, it should open up new habitats and
>make much needed mineral and energy resources more available.

I have no idea why you think AGW will help increase food production.
AIUI there's no evidence to suggest that. AGW will cause most regions
to become drier and hotter, and cause more severe and damaging storms.
Fresh water will become more scarce even as the population increases,
leading to international water wars.

>Not saying my mind is make up either way, it's just that
>this seems to be an assumption that hasn't been studied
>nearly as much as whether change it occurring and why.
>
>I'm just uncomfortable with the idea that an evolving
>adaptive planet should suddenly be forced into chasing
>some atmospheric numbers set by some committee.

AGW isn't something that just happened. AGW is caused by humans. We
have an obligation to mitigate it.

[eridanus]

Respect to the future of humanity... I fear a lot more the exhaustion of
fossil fuels than global warming. But in a few years I would dead. I would
have not any problems. So, it is none of my concern what would happen in
30 years. It is up to you, younger people, to choose what to worry about.

Fossil fuels would get exhausted well before you all would be dead meat.

Eri

[eridanus]

On Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 9:14:53 AM UTC+1, jillery wrote:

If the atmosphere is really heating, the surface of the seas would be also heating. This would produce more water vapor and more rains. No more deserts.
Watching carefully the graphs of Vostot Petit it shows the dust storms are
closely related to lower temperatures. As the temperature goes down, the
rain becomes a rarity for some latitudes. The consequences of the lack of
rains is desertification. This is the conclusion you get watching the Vostok
Petit graphics of dust and temperature.

Desertification is due mainly to cold not to heat. Instead of hearing what
other people is saying about AGW you should do some search of your own.

Eri

[Ernest Major]

Have you considered looking at rainfall and temperature maps of the
world? If you did I suspect that you see that your claim is contradicted
by observation.

Deserts occur where there is low precipitation. There can be several
reasons for that. One is that the air is so cold that it can only hold
negligible amounts of water (polar deserts). But another reason is that
the air has low relative humidity, which can occur because the moisture
is taken out by mountains upwind (orographic deserts) or because of
general circulation patterns (mid-latitude and monsoon deserts).

If you define deserts by a lack of vegetation cover there's also another
factor that comes into account. An increase in surface temperature means
more evaporation and transpiration, which may more than counteract any
increase in precipitation.

--
alias Ernest Major

[jillery]

My impression is the two events to which you refer above would be more
closely correlated than you suggest.

Of course, since it takes millions of years for fossils fuels to
accumulate naturally, if fossil fuels continue to be burned, I agree
they must necessarily become exhausted sooner or later.

Of course, by exhausted, I mean in an economic sense, that the cost to
extract and transport them will exceed the value to burn them. It will
not be a case like Easter Island, where the natives of Island Earth
continue to use them down to the last metaphorical tree.

And as long as there is life on Earth, there will be natural
production of methane.

In the meantime, unless a way is found to sequester the hundreds of
billions of tons of carbon released by exhausting fossil fuels, the
worst results of AGW will have already happened long before that.

If you want to see what too much CO2 does to a planet, just look at
Venus, which has a surface temperature hot enough to melt lead.

[jillery]

Yes.

>This would produce more water vapor and more rains. No more deserts.

No. The higher temperatures will hold more water, to be released more
violently in specific regions.

>Watching carefully the graphs of Vostot Petit it shows the dust storms are
>closely related to lower temperatures. As the temperature goes down, the
>rain becomes a rarity for some latitudes. The consequences of the lack of
>rains is desertification. This is the conclusion you get watching the Vostok
>Petit graphics of dust and temperature.
>
>Desertification is due mainly to cold not to heat. Instead of hearing what
>other people is saying about AGW you should do some search of your own.

Desertification is due mainly to wind patterns interacting with
surface features. Most of Australia, Saudi Arabia, the Sahara, the
Namib, the Mojave, and Sonoran are counter examples to your claim
above. Most of central Asia is a desert because the Himalayas block
the humidity from the Indian Ocean reaching it.

With AGW, the wet areas will get even more rain, causing catastrophic
floods, while the dry areas will become even drier. Weather patterns
will change, making it harder to predict and plan when and where to
grow crops.

For someone who is a self-identified ignorant, you put a lot of faith
in your contrary interpretations of those graphs.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 22:39:30 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Jonathan <Wr...@gmail.com>:

Because overall it *is* a bad thing, at least partially
because of its effect on sea levels; a large percentage of
the human population lives in areas which will be negatively
affected by sea level rise.

>For instance it should lead to dramatic increases in our
>ability to grow food, it should open up new habitats and
>make much needed mineral and energy resources more available.

While it will open some areas to cultivation, it will close
others, at least for the grains which are such a large part
of agricultural production, due to desertification.

>Not saying my mind is make up either way, it's just that
>this seems to be an assumption that hasn't been studied
>nearly as much as whether change it occurring and why.

I think if you actually do some research you'll find that
the subject has been studied extensively, and that models
have been growing steadily more sophisticated over the past
few decades.

>I'm just uncomfortable with the idea that an evolving
>adaptive planet should suddenly be forced into chasing
>some atmospheric numbers set by some committee.

It's not about "chasing some atmospheric numbers", it's
about measuring and recording the *rate* of change, which
IIRC exceeds that at the end of the last glaciation.

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:lsmnkchf8a1s5l7pq...@4ax.com...

Or Mars, the atmosphere being over 90% CO2.

[jillery]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 10:42:58 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Of course, Mars' atmosphere is 100 times thinner than Earth's, partly
due to Mars being a tenth the mass of Earth, and partly due to Mars
having no magnetosphere. So your comparison above is like comparing
Earth's atmosphere at sea level and at over 100,000 feet above it,
hardly a reasonable one.

And yes, Venus' atmosphere is way thicker than Earth's. I don't know
whether pressure or composition contributes more to its surface
temperature.

[Mark Isaak]

Heat waves are particularly deadly to the elderly. And beyond-normal
heat waves will affect most of the world's population in the next five
years (and beyond). There is a decent chance that global warming will
kill you.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

[Mark Isaak]

Much area currently under cultivation will become too hot to grow crops.
The areas whose climate will become more favorable are those which,
until recently, were under glaciers, and thus have poor soil.

And then other areas, including those where at least one third of the
world's population lives, will become ocean. The people will be forced
to move. (Some Louisianans are climate refugees already.)

Also, the climate changes mean more extreme weather -- more flooding,
more blizzards, more heat waves. Again, these are happening already.
California is expected to get about as much rain as it used to, but it
will soon not fall as snow, which feeds rivers during the summer.
Instead, we will get floods during the winter and drought during the
summer. Not at all good for farming.

The higher temperature alone reduce people's productivity. But they
make disease organisms happy. Diseases are already spreading, too.

> Not saying my mind is make up either way, it's just that
> this seems to be an assumption that hasn't been studied
> nearly as much as whether change it occurring and why.
>
> I'm just uncomfortable with the idea that an evolving
> adaptive planet should suddenly be forced into chasing
> some atmospheric numbers set by some committee.

It is studied a whole lot more than the Oil Companies and their
lobbyists want you to know about. Plus, the bad effects are happening.

[eridanus]

The papers of P. deMenocal about Green Sahara, tell us a story about, how
the Sahara was a sort of steppe from 11,000 to 6,000 years ago. But since
6,000 years ago, it become a process of desertification that got worse around
4,000 years. It stopped raining in the Sahara since 4,000 years ago. The
reason must be related to the SST that was higher before 6,000 years ago.

Observing the downs in temperature GISP2 ice cores, you can observe some
periods of drought associated. I have a graphic of Peter deMenocal about the
temperatures of the Gulf of Aden it clearly shows a down after 6000 BP and
a later a deeper one, at 4,000 years BP. This period caused a great drought
in the Nile and caused the collapse of the ancient kingdom, as most of its
population died of famine. In the record of Aden temperatures it does not
show the conspicuous collapses you can see in the GISP2 curve 8,200 and 7,200
years BP It must had been something related to the Artic and higher latitudes.

But it seems the SST temperature affecting the equatorial belt, the main source
of rains in the mountains Ethiopia... also the temperature of the Indian Ocean
would had been lower. This would explain in part the drought in Ethiopia and
in Africa as well. The rains in Africa es some like a monsoon effect. It
depends on how much water vapor goes with the wind to the interior lands. It is not different to the case of the monsoon in India or some parts of south Asia.
When the heat of the Pacific ocean accumulates on the east side (El Niño) there is a more or less severe drought in India and South East Asia. It depends on
the degrees of coldness of the sea surface in the Indian Ocean, or even in the
western part of the Pacific.

The deserts mean, not enough water vapor.
I have made annotations on a GISP2 graph with the known historical events, and
diverse collapses we only know of because of the archeology. It coincides with
drops in temperature, the collapses of most empires. It is also notorious the
collapses of China dynasties each time the monsoon failed some consecutive
years. Those collapses are coincident with drops in temperature registered
in the curves of GISP2

I am reading different things about reality. Our knowledge of reality is in
our speeches and theories we make. But our theories, our speeches, can be
wrong. Reality is what it is even if humans would had not existed to make
speeches or theories.
eri

[eridanus]

I am already 90. I would get dead mostly with a cold. I live in some Atlantic
Island, the Canaries, and heat waves are are here.

eri

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ro2okc58obmot2pv2...@4ax.com...

You just said all you have to do is look at it.
http://www.ancient-origins.net/sites/default/files/field/image/Venus-russia.jpg

[Steven Carlip]

On 6/21/17 9:55 AM, eridanus wrote:

[...]

> I have a large collection of graphics referring to the last thousand
> years. In all those graphics, sometimes temperatures are rising and
> sometimes are lowering. You can choose the part of a graphic you
> like best. One that would predict predicts a catastrophic warming
> like 20 million years ago, or other that is announcing the next
> glacial age.

> When you take a part of curve to predict what happens next this is
> called extrapolating.

Right. And that would be a bad idea. What we do instead is
called "science." It involves figuring out *why* temperatures
change. You might try to learn some of it sometime.

Steve Carlip

[Steven Carlip]

On 6/21/17 7:39 PM, Jonathan wrote:

[...]

> Why is it always assumed global warming is a bad thing?

> For instance it should lead to dramatic increases in our
> ability to grow food, it should open up new habitats and
> make much needed mineral and energy resources more available.

> Not saying my mind is make up either way, it's just that
> this seems to be an assumption that hasn't been studied
> nearly as much as whether change it occurring and why.

If you want to look at an overview of effects on the United
States, take a look at
http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report#section-1946. For an
international overview, look
at the IPCC report at http://ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/.

> I'm just uncomfortable with the idea that an evolving
> adaptive planet should suddenly be forced into chasing
> some atmospheric numbers set by some committee.

It's a question of rate. The Earth certainly is evolving and
adaptive, but on time scales much, much longer than the very
abrupt changes due to anthropogenic warming.

Steve Carlip

[jillery]

On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 21:10:42 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>

I didn't realize you would troll with an overly literal interpretation
of "look". My bad.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 01:18:01 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Not really; expecting an adult response is never "bad", even
if experience indicates none will be forthcoming from a
particular individual.

[Glenn]

"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:dalqkcp95jfca49sv...@4ax.com...

That would depend on your understanding of what "adult" implies. Did you think of that, or are you just too stupid or childish?

[eridanus]

To figure out the meaning of data is what scientists are doing.

I am a simply amateur.

eri

[William Hyde]

On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 10:44:53 PM UTC-4, Jonathan wrote:

> Why is it always assumed global warming is a bad thing?

For a start, it is not merely assumed. For decades now, biologists, hydrologists, agronomists, economists (etc) have been studying the effect of a warmer planet. It's not a good effect in the short term (a century or two).

The long term is harder to call. As you say, both we and the planet can adapt/evolve to meet fairly severe changes. Small consolation, though, to the billions who have to survive the transitional period.

But even without the detailed studies cited above, it's fairly clear that bad things will happen. Our ecosystems and agricultural practices are finely adapted to the current climate. A small warming, change in rainfall (or in the ocean, change in PH) is far more likely to do harm than good.

Unexpected and bad things can happen. One study of soybeans grown in a high CO2 atmosphere resulted in unusually high losses to predation by insects. It turned out that the plants' ability to produce a defensive hormone, Jasmonic acid, had been damaged in this environment. So bugs ate much more. Multiply that event by many millions.

>
> For instance it should lead to dramatic increases in our
> ability to grow food,

A two degree warming in the Ganges valley will force farmers there to move to more heat-tolerant but lower yield crops. Who makes up that shortfall while we wait for the vast wheat fields of the Yukon to take up the slack? And it will be a long wait. Thanks to the ice ages, much of northern Canada doesn't have soil. Or not enough, or not the right kind, for our crops. That will take a long time to fix. Other cold areas have similar problems (though some cold areas have good soil, e.g. parts of Alaska).

it should open up new habitats and
> make much needed mineral and energy resources more available.

In "The Ring of Fire" in northern Ontario, a vast mineral resource sits unexploited. Mainly because there is no road there. Warmer weather won't help much. A few billion dollars will, but nobody is prepared to invest that.

> Not saying my mind is make up either way, it's just that
> this seems to be an assumption that hasn't been studied
> nearly as much as whether change it occurring and why.

Well, there's this for a start:

http://mudancasclimaticas.cptec.inpe.br/~rmclima/pdfs/destaques/sternreview_report_complete.pdf

>
> I'm just uncomfortable with the idea that an evolving
> adaptive planet should suddenly be forced into chasing
> some atmospheric numbers set by some committee.

It's more the case that we are poking an animal we don't understand with a stick. And a a committee is telling us we don't know how big it's teeth are, and we really should stop. We have reason to believe the animal is not happy being poked.

William Hyde

[jillery]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 02:33:09 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 01:21:06 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:v4khkcd7ac6bo5s2o...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 10:40:14 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:5tvfkc1j4o7onr1qn...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 11:41:13 -0700, the following appeared
>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message news:aofdkc9u9kobf5ed3...@4ax.com...

>>>>>>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 12:47:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>>>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by William Hyde
>>>>>>> <wthyd...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 2:34:52 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>>>>>>>>> From the article:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/how-much-co2-does-a-single-volcano-emit-bbc045be015d>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <http://tinyurl.com/y8wrqc5h>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *********************************************
>>>>>>>>> When you realize that volcanism contributes 645 million tons of CO2

>>>>>>>>> per year-and it becomes clearer if you write it as 0.645 billion tons
>>>>>>>>> of CO2 per year-compared to humanity's 29 billion tons per year, it's

>>>>>>>>> overwhelmingly clear what's caused the carbon dioxide increase in
>>>>>>>>> Earth's atmosphere since 1750.
>>>>>>>>> *********************************************
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Ah, the zeroth line of defense for deniers - not only does CO2 not affect climate, but it's not even due to humans that it is rising! Is anyone on this group still pushing that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Not to mention that the CO2 record shows no significant upward bump after a large eruption, such as El Chichon or Pinatubo. It's in the noise.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since that's essentially what the quote says (humans
>>>>>>> contribute ~45x as much CO2 as vulcanism; 29/0.645) , I fail
>>>>>>> to see who you're arguing against. Perhaps you mistakenly
>>>>>>> read "0.645" as "645"?
>>>>>

>>>>>>Only a very small part of naturally produced CO2 come from volcanoes. Three down.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anything to say relevant to what I posted? No? OK.
>>>>> --
>>>>Anything to say relevant to what I posted? No? OK.
>>>
>>> Anything to say relevant to what I posted? No? OK
>>>
>>> Cuts all ways, bubba.
>>>
>>> And since you haven't replied yet, I hope you haven't forgotten to
>>> schedule in your timetable to reveal how you think what I posted is
>>> "dishonest", and what you think are the differences between hypotheses
>>> and facts.
>>>
>>You do so like to lie.
>
>
>Where's the lie, liar?


No reply. So you run away from backing up your claim that I lied, and
your claim that something I posted was dishonest. That's ok, there
are lots of strange bedfellows who think it's ok to post pointless
personal attacks against me and then run away. Apparently strange
bedfellows think cowardly and dishonest are worthwhile lifestyle
choices.

[Glenn]

"William Hyde" <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:6be26812-53de-4f58...@googlegroups.com...

> On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 10:44:53 PM UTC-4, Jonathan wrote:
>
>> Why is it always assumed global warming is a bad thing?
>
> For a start, it is not merely assumed. For decades now, biologists, hydrologists, agronomists, economists (etc) have been studying the effect of a warmer planet. It's not a good effect in the short term (a century or two).
>
> The long term is harder to call. As you say, both we and the planet can adapt/evolve to meet fairly severe changes. Small consolation, though, to the billions who have to survive the transitional period.
>
> But even without the detailed studies cited above, it's fairly clear that bad things will happen. Our ecosystems and agricultural practices are finely adapted to the current climate. A small warming, change in rainfall (or in the ocean, change in PH) is far more likely to do harm than good.
>
> Unexpected and bad things can happen. One study of soybeans grown in a high CO2 atmosphere resulted in unusually high losses to predation by insects. It turned out that the plants' ability to produce a defensive hormone, Jasmonic acid, had been damaged in this environment. So bugs ate much more. Multiply that event by many millions.
>

Doom and gloom incorporated.

Look at the CO2 hotspots
https://www.google.com/search?q=brazil+atmospheric+co2+ppm&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi6h-CD-NbUAhVU8GMKHanIBpQQ_AUIBygC&biw=1280&bih=929&dpr=1#tbm=isch&q=brazil+atmospheric+co2+ppm+brazil&imgrc=kRW3ayOOn1mbqM:

compared to global soybean crops
https://www.google.com/search?q=soybean+crops+world&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiSnamZ-dbUAhVS8WMKHTYwBnkQ_AUICygC&biw=1280&bih=929#imgrc=e7NZnUx44qKN9M:

Nice correlation, wouldn't you say? Might there be a reason?

The climate is warming on average worldwide.
Soybean grows well in elevated CO2.
Soybean aphids do poorly in warmer climes.

Many factors influence the damage aphids do to some soybean varieties. To make the simple undocumented claim you did, to support your alarmism, is irresponsible. Multiply that by many millions.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 13:57:55 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

Q.E.D.

[jillery]

On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 10:05:56 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>
>"William Hyde" <wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:6be26812-53de-4f58...@googlegroups.com...
>> On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 10:44:53 PM UTC-4, Jonathan wrote:
>>
>>> Why is it always assumed global warming is a bad thing?
>>
>> For a start, it is not merely assumed. For decades now, biologists, hydrologists, agronomists, economists (etc) have been studying the effect of a warmer planet. It's not a good effect in the short term (a century or two).
>>
>> The long term is harder to call. As you say, both we and the planet can adapt/evolve to meet fairly severe changes. Small consolation, though, to the billions who have to survive the transitional period.
>>
>> But even without the detailed studies cited above, it's fairly clear that bad things will happen. Our ecosystems and agricultural practices are finely adapted to the current climate. A small warming, change in rainfall (or in the ocean, change in PH) is far more likely to do harm than good.
>>
>> Unexpected and bad things can happen. One study of soybeans grown in a high CO2 atmosphere resulted in unusually high losses to predation by insects. It turned out that the plants' ability to produce a defensive hormone, Jasmonic acid, had been damaged in this environment. So bugs ate much more. Multiply that event by many millions.
>>
>Doom and gloom incorporated.
>
>Look at the CO2 hotspots
>https://www.google.com/search?q=brazil+atmospheric+co2+ppm&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi6h-CD-NbUAhVU8GMKHanIBpQQ_AUIBygC&biw=1280&bih=929&dpr=1#tbm=isch&q=brazil+atmospheric+co2+ppm+brazil&imgrc=kRW3ayOOn1mbqM:
>
>compared to global soybean crops
>https://www.google.com/search?q=soybean+crops+world&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiSnamZ-dbUAhVS8WMKHTYwBnkQ_AUICygC&biw=1280&bih=929#imgrc=e7NZnUx44qKN9M:
>
>Nice correlation, wouldn't you say? Might there be a reason?

Nope and nope. According to your cites, soybean yields increased
rapidly in central U.S., but there was only marginal CO2 increase
there. OTOH there was substantial CO2 increase over much of South
Africa and East Indies, but soybean yields mostly stagnated there. Are
you sure you posted the right maps?

>The climate is warming on average worldwide.
>Soybean grows well in elevated CO2.
>Soybean aphids do poorly in warmer climes.
>
>Many factors influence the damage aphids do to some soybean varieties. To make the simple undocumented claim you did, to support your alarmism, is irresponsible. Multiply that by many millions.

Man does not live by soybeans alone, thank dog.

[Jonathan]

According to NASA in the US growing seasons should be
lengthened substantially, and the US is the breadbasket
of the world.


The consequences of climate change

Frost-free season (and growing season) will lengthen

The length of the frost-free season (and the corresponding
growing season) has been increasing nationally since the 1980s,
with the largest increases occurring in the western
United States, affecting ecosystems and agriculture. Across
the United States, the growing season is projected to
continue to lengthen.

In a future in which heat-trapping gas emissions continue
to grow, increases of a month or more in the lengths of
the frost-free and growing seasons are projected across
most of the U.S. by the end of the century, with slightly
smaller increases in the northern Great Plains.
The largest increases in the frost-free season (more
than eight weeks) are projected for the western U.S.,
particularly in high elevation and coastal areas.
The increases will be considerably smaller if
heat-trapping gas emissions are reduced.

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

> AIUI there's no evidence to suggest that. AGW will cause most regions
> to become drier and hotter, and cause more severe and damaging storms.
> Fresh water will become more scarce even as the population increases,
> leading to international water wars.
>

The statement by the IPCC is far too vague to be
of use. The incredibly complicated array of
relationships would outstrip our ability to
predict in a very short time period.


"Taken as a whole," the IPCC states, "the range of published
evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change
are likely to be significant and to increase over time."

>
>> Not saying my mind is make up either way, it's just that
>> this seems to be an assumption that hasn't been studied
>> nearly as much as whether change it occurring and why.
>>
>> I'm just uncomfortable with the idea that an evolving
>> adaptive planet should suddenly be forced into chasing
>> some atmospheric numbers set by some committee.
>
>
> AGW isn't something that just happened. AGW is caused by humans. We
> have an obligation to mitigate it.
>

And if the effects of the onset of photosynthesis were
somehow 'mitigated'? Our system is adaptive and evolving
so the solutions MUST be also, else we flirt with global
disaster in the unjustified belief a few eggheads
know what is best.

A top down or 'autocratic' solution is a recipe for disaster.

[Jonathan]

[jillery]

The length of growing season is defined by the period of time without
killing frosts. This is only one factor among many which determine
how much food can be produced. It does little good to have an
extended growing season when during that time the ground is either too
dry or too wet.

[Martin Harran]

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 15:13:10 -0700 (PDT), William Hyde
<wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 10:44:53 PM UTC-4, Jonathan wrote:
>

[...]

>> I'm just uncomfortable with the idea that an evolving
>> adaptive planet should suddenly be forced into chasing
>> some atmospheric numbers set by some committee.
>
>It's more the case that we are poking an animal we don't understand with a stick. And a a committee is telling us we don't know how big it's teeth are, and we really should stop. We have reason to believe the animal is not happy being poked.
>

Good analogy, William.

[eridanus]

On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 11:14:53 PM UTC+1, William Hyde wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 10:44:53 PM UTC-4, Jonathan wrote:
>
> > Why is it always assumed global warming is a bad thing?
>
> For a start, it is not merely assumed. For decades now, biologists, hydrologists, agronomists, economists (etc) have been studying the effect of a warmer planet. It's not a good effect in the short term (a century or two).

This is not what I had read about the recent studies on the past Holocene
climate. Each time the climate have had lower temperature than at present
dynasties had collapsed, the Little Ice had cause serious disasters, harvest
had failed for several years. the river Thames had been frozen for months
during the winter so often, etc, Some years it was impossible to harvest
cereals, etc. The collapse of the Roman Empire was caused by a severe drop
in temperature forcing some German tribus to migrate south. But the Roman
was on its knees because of lack of food. This horrible situation lasted
more than 300 years. Even when improving later in the 9th century, climate
was erratic, showing frequent lows lasting several years in the 10th century.
Eleventh and twelfth centuries were good (Medieval Warming Period) except
at the end of 12th century. The worse of the low temperatures it is that
it can be intense, lasting a few years and making the harvest to fail
miserable.
There had been several periods lasting more than a 100 years that temperatures
dropped, and drought correlated. You should read more about past climates
to speak so easy about a general rise in temperature is such a bad thing.
By the way, all past interglacial ages were when the temperatures rose up
and the glacial ages come after temperatures dropped.

As the present temperature would drop as little as a degree or two, the ice
would began to accumulate, and the glaciers would advance. After some
threshold of low temperature, deserts began to increase much in size in
the planet. And the storms of dust would make shade of the sunlight pushing farther down the temperatures.

Eri

[William Hyde]

On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 9:44:53 AM UTC-4, eridanus wrote:
> On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 11:14:53 PM UTC+1, William Hyde wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 10:44:53 PM UTC-4, Jonathan wrote:
> >
> > > Why is it always assumed global warming is a bad thing?
> >
> > For a start, it is not merely assumed. For decades now, biologists, hydrologists, agronomists, economists (etc) have been studying the effect of a warmer planet. It's not a good effect in the short term (a century or two).
>
> This is not what I had read about the recent studies on the past Holocene
> climate.

You read, but you do not understand.

Consider the two propositions:

Warming the planet two degrees C would be bad for us.

Cooling the planet two degrees C would be bad for us.

There is no contradiction between the two. And if pollution was causing the globe to cool, I would be against that too. And you would deny that it was happening.

You are proud of your ignorance. You shouldn't be.

William Hyde

[eridanus]

As I am basically skeptic, I have not reasons to believe the main arguments
you present are good. I do not see any reason to believe the temperature
is going to rise 2 degrees. The most common argument used to state
this do no looks good to me. Even if it has been repeated quite a lot.

In the end, all comes out to a case of credibility. The team defending
the anthropogenic theory are not resenting a good case. Of course, I can
be wrong. But I do not get convinced by their arguments. I do not trust
the AGW defenders.

Some time ago, I declared that to believe in AGW I needed to hear what
those opposing AGW could be saying. I was collecting a lot of information
about past climate and I become an unbeliever.

And the way people here is pushing the AGW theory made me an unbeliever.

Eri

[Robert Carnegie]

On Sunday, 25 June 2017 21:24:53 UTC+1, eridanus wrote:
> On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 8:34:52 PM UTC+1, William Hyde wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 9:44:53 AM UTC-4, eridanus wrote:
> > > On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 11:14:53 PM UTC+1, William Hyde wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 10:44:53 PM UTC-4, Jonathan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Why is it always assumed global warming is a bad thing?
> > > >
> > > > For a start, it is not merely assumed. For decades now, biologists, hydrologists, agronomists, economists (etc) have been studying the effect of a warmer planet. It's not a good effect in the short term (a century or two).
> > >
> > > This is not what I had read about the recent studies on the past Holocene
> > > climate.
> >
> > You read, but you do not understand.
> >
> > Consider the two propositions:
> >
> > Warming the planet two degrees C would be bad for us.
> >
> > Cooling the planet two degrees C would be bad for us.
> >
> > There is no contradiction between the two. And if pollution was causing the globe to cool, I would be against that too. And you would deny that it was happening.
> >
> > You are proud of your ignorance. You shouldn't be.
> >
> > William Hyde
>
> As I am basically skeptic, I have not reasons to believe the main arguments
> you present are good. I do not see any reason to believe the temperature
> is going to rise 2 degrees. The most common argument used to state
> this do no looks good to me. Even if it has been repeated quite a lot.

<https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/>
says it's gone up a hair less than 1 degree C
since the mid twentieth century. Do you disbelieve
that? If not, then why disbelieve 2 degrees C?
If degrees C is what we're talking about:
I am not sure.

[Mark Isaak]

Where will they get their water?

And I assume if you found a large bag labeled, "CAUTION: BIOHAZARD", you
would deem the warning too vague (it does not specify exactly what
hazardous materials there are), open the bag, and rummage around inside.

We do know some of the effects of global warming. Storms and droughts
will both become more severe. Forest fires will become more common and
more intense. Infectious diseases, especially tropical ones, will
affect more people. People will be forced from their land by rising seas.

Of course, none of the above are really predictions, because they are
all happening already, in the United States and elsewhere around the world.

>
> "Taken as a whole," the IPCC states, "the range of published
> evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change
> are likely to be significant and to increase over time."
>
>
>
>
> >
> >> Not saying my mind is make up either way, it's just that
> >> this seems to be an assumption that hasn't been studied
> >> nearly as much as whether change it occurring and why.
> >>
> >> I'm just uncomfortable with the idea that an evolving
> >> adaptive planet should suddenly be forced into chasing
> >> some atmospheric numbers set by some committee.
> >
> >
> > AGW isn't something that just happened. AGW is caused by humans. We
> > have an obligation to mitigate it.
> >
>
>
>
> And if the effects of the onset of photosynthesis were
> somehow 'mitigated'? Our system is adaptive and evolving
> so the solutions MUST be also, else we flirt with global
> disaster in the unjustified belief a few eggheads
> know what is best.

Hillbilly elitism: Pretending your ideas are somehow better because
other people are smarter than you.

> A top down or 'autocratic' solution is a recipe for disaster.

We already have the disaster. The calls to fix it come from the
grass-roots level. The top-down autocratic ignoring of the disaster,
which you favor, will only make it worse.

[Öö Tiib]

On Sunday, 25 June 2017 23:24:53 UTC+3, eridanus wrote:
> On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 8:34:52 PM UTC+1, William Hyde wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 9:44:53 AM UTC-4, eridanus wrote:
> > > On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 11:14:53 PM UTC+1, William Hyde wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 10:44:53 PM UTC-4, Jonathan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Why is it always assumed global warming is a bad thing?
> > > >
> > > > For a start, it is not merely assumed. For decades now, biologists, hydrologists, agronomists, economists (etc) have been studying the effect of a warmer planet. It's not a good effect in the short term (a century or two).
> > >
> > > This is not what I had read about the recent studies on the past Holocene
> > > climate.
> >
> > You read, but you do not understand.
> >
> > Consider the two propositions:
> >
> > Warming the planet two degrees C would be bad for us.
> >
> > Cooling the planet two degrees C would be bad for us.
> >
> > There is no contradiction between the two. And if pollution was causing the globe to cool, I would be against that too. And you would deny that it was happening.
> >
> > You are proud of your ignorance. You shouldn't be.
> >
> > William Hyde
>
> As I am basically skeptic, I have not reasons to believe the main arguments
> you present are good. I do not see any reason to believe the temperature
> is going to rise 2 degrees. The most common argument used to state
> this do no looks good to me. Even if it has been repeated quite a lot.

That is your right not to believe any evidence presented by others.

> In the end, all comes out to a case of credibility. The team defending
> the anthropogenic theory are not resenting a good case. Of course, I can
> be wrong. But I do not get convinced by their arguments. I do not trust
> the AGW defenders.

It is fine. Note however that these are very similar to reasons why some
people do not trust that the Earth is not flat but spherical. Where is
the return of investment from alleged conspiracy of global magnitude to
mislead people about world being spherical? Or same about AGW? Such
conspiracies would take inhuman cleverness and be unbelievably expensive
to run.

> Some time ago, I declared that to believe in AGW I needed to hear what
> those opposing AGW could be saying. I was collecting a lot of information
> about past climate and I become an unbeliever.
>
> And the way people here is pushing the AGW theory made me an unbeliever.

Climate matters a lot and correct predictions of it have very clear and
large return of investment. That is why there are lot of independent
(and competing) measurements and calculations made. Now if 97-98% of
those agree that we got AGW then most likely the tiny minority has some
clique interest to deny it, not other way around.

[eridanus]

To me, this NASA prediction of future temperatures is as believable as
the moon landing on the moon.

This is a hoax. Those on charge of making the graphs can push down the
past temperatures to make look the present temperatures as had risen a lot.

Eri

[eridanus]

do not exaggerate. Some things can be true, some false. Since several
thousand years educated people know the planet is a sphere.
What I mean is that not by repeating a lie thousands of times the lie becomes
a truth. Other question is what happens in the brains of people. A lie
often repeated becomes a truth, like a god.
The same happens in science for some decades.
Anyway. I reserve my credulity on AGW for a few future decades. If this
Global Warming is real, we would watch it. If not, there would be a downward
trend of temperature. A few people is predicting the next glacial age.

In my condition of skeptic I cannot believe but the trivial facts.
Those testimonies about the AGW are not trivial facts yet.

Eri

[Sean Dillon]

...Was that a typo, or did you actually mean the moon landing on the moon? If so, I have to agree, that's pretty unlikely, given that there only is one moon. If you meant "man" landing on the moon, I guess we can add moon-landing conspiracy theorist to your CV?

As for ths other bit, is THIS what you're talking about? If so, they actually adjusted the temperature estimates UP, not down.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/feb/08/no-climate-conspiracy-noaa-temperature-adjustments-bring-data-closer-to-pristine

[Sean Dillon]

Eri, we ARE watching it. Not only are global temperatures verifiably going up, but extreme weather conditions are becoming more frequent and more severe, sea levels are rising, and glaciers are receding. We really cannot afford to wait a few more decades to recognize and react to climate change... for our own safety, if not the planet's.

[Glenn]

"Sean Dillon" <seand...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:154958ec-bab0-499a...@googlegroups.com...

Compare these two
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.gif
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarm1999/Images/1999_fig3.gif

These are not "estimates", they depict measurements of temperature anomalies.

[erik simpson]

That's a odd statement. NASA's website says "The GISS Surface Temperature
Analysis (GISTEMP) is an estimate of global surface temperature change."

The second graph is qualified as: "Our analyzed temperature, in the United
States and the rest of the world, includes corrections for urban effects on the
record. Nearby rural stations are used to adjust the long-term trends at urban
stations, as described by Hansen et al. (1999)"

Not exactly raw data.

[Glenn]

"erik simpson" <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:26ff3a94-5b9c-4763...@googlegroups.com...

My characterization is "odd" because it is in opposition to what the website says? Lordy. So you think "analyzed" and "adjusted" indicates estimates?

>
> The second graph is qualified as: "Our analyzed temperature, in the United
> States and the rest of the world, includes corrections for urban effects on the
> record. Nearby rural stations are used to adjust the long-term trends at urban
> stations, as described by Hansen et al. (1999)"
>
> Not exactly raw data.
>

No, nor did anyone argue differently. But they do demonstrate that eri's claim they "push down the past temperatures to make look the present temperatures as had risen a lot." is not entirely false. 1934 is notable.
The graphs show that certain years were pushed UP, but that resulted in the same effect, making the temperature look like it had risen a lot.

Nice try at diversion though.

[jillery]

On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 20:34:00 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

ISTM most people would suppose the word "estimate" indicates
estimates. Apparently your mileage varies.

>> The second graph is qualified as: "Our analyzed temperature, in the United
>> States and the rest of the world, includes corrections for urban effects on the
>> record. Nearby rural stations are used to adjust the long-term trends at urban
>> stations, as described by Hansen et al. (1999)"
>>
>> Not exactly raw data.
>>
>No, nor did anyone argue differently. But they do demonstrate that eri's claim they "push down the past temperatures to make look the present temperatures as had risen a lot." is not entirely false. 1934 is notable.
>The graphs show that certain years were pushed UP, but that resulted in the same effect, making the temperature look like it had risen a lot.

Are you referring above to the same graphs you cited? I'm unable to
determine the values for 1934 particularly.

>Nice try at diversion though.
>
>
>
>

[erik simpson]

No diversion intended. How do you think the earth's temperature is measured?
And yes, "analysed" and "adjusted" are definitly methods of estimation. Almost
all scientific "results" are estimates based on raw data. It takes a lot of
digestion.

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:de96lcp64pl65fu6k...@4ax.com...

And most people would suppose the word "measurements" indicates measurements. Your mileage definitely "varies".

>
>
>>> The second graph is qualified as: "Our analyzed temperature, in the United
>>> States and the rest of the world, includes corrections for urban effects on the
>>> record. Nearby rural stations are used to adjust the long-term trends at urban
>>> stations, as described by Hansen et al. (1999)"
>>>
>>> Not exactly raw data.
>>>
>>No, nor did anyone argue differently. But they do demonstrate that eri's claim they "push down the past temperatures to make look the present temperatures as had risen a lot." is not entirely false. 1934 is notable.
>>The graphs show that certain years were pushed UP, but that resulted in the same effect, making the temperature look like it had risen a lot.
>
>
> Are you referring above to the same graphs you cited? I'm unable to
> determine the values for 1934 particularly.
>

And you want a Tootsie Roll?

[Glenn]

"erik simpson" <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1c4d26b5-eb48-4748...@googlegroups.com...

I'll grant you that is hard to swallow. And you're still pushing a diversion. But I'll play.

"Global surface temperatures in 1999 fell back from the record setting high level of 1998, which was the warmest year in the period of instrumental data."
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarm1999/

Would you call "temperatures" and "instrumental data" estimates? It would seem to me that adjustments and corrections to data are measurements. Temperature is one example of a measurement. From the link above:

"The temperature in the United States"

[erik simpson]

Yes, they're estimates. You want to play word games, but I'm not that interested.

[jillery]

On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 22:50:38 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Since you asked, what I want is a cogent reply. Apparently you're
incapable of even a coherent reply. So enjoy playing with yourself.

[Glenn]

"erik simpson" <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:8e501b35-d40b-46d8...@googlegroups.com...

Actually you wnt to play word games, apparently to deflect attention from the evidence I provided. You could have dismissed my use of a particular word that had no affect on that evidence. Why else would you take such issue with my calling the data "measurements"? By all means, do regard the scientific data as "estimates". Just keep in mind others can read.

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:n1h7lctpvqr2p33lm...@4ax.com...

Because I don't care what you want?? You need psychiatric help. Seriously.

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <oj0h3n$ug7$1...@dont-email.me>, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>

You do understand that this is attempting to determine *mean*
temperatures across the US. You can directly measure a temperature at a
given point and time, but you can't directly measure the mean.

The reason they are 'pushing down' temperatures in urban areas isn't to
make warming look more pronounced; it's to control for the fact that
urban areas, for a variety of reasons, tend to be artificially warm. If
there really were some global conspiracy to manufacture evidence for
warming, they wouldn't have done these corrections since without them
the results would have shown an even greater warming trend.

Scientists, however, are honest. They know that without these
corrections the data would be misleading, so they are careful to include
them.

Andre

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.

[Glenn]

"Andre G. Isaak" <agi...@gm.invalid> wrote in message news:agisaak-6BF37D...@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu...

That makes no sense. The mean temperatures are based on temperatures. "Mean" doesn't mean "aren't temperature measurements".

>
> The reason they are 'pushing down' temperatures in urban areas isn't to
> make warming look more pronounced; it's to control for the fact that
> urban areas, for a variety of reasons, tend to be artificially warm. If
> there really were some global conspiracy to manufacture evidence for
> warming, they wouldn't have done these corrections since without them
> the results would have shown an even greater warming trend.
>
> Scientists, however, are honest. They know that without these
> corrections the data would be misleading, so they are careful to include
> them.
>

There is no "correcting" up recent temps that could be affected by urban heat islands. You're arguing a strawman at best.
The graphs show early 20th century "corrected" downward, and later half 20th century "corrected" up. Whether that is the result of a coordinated conspirator or not, the two graphs show different warming trends, the more recent being a greater warming trend.

Here's another link to the older graph:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
which compares the US temp to the global temperature - titled "Global Temperature", not "Global Temperature Estimates".

Hey look, those two graphs are evidence that "global warming" is not global.
And the more recent US graph I originally linked looks much more aligned with the Global Temperature" graph, to show a steep warming trend from the 70s to 2000. Here's a site that makes it harder to ignore:

http://miltonconservative.blogspot.com/2014/06/data-tampering-at-ushcngiss-from-real.html

[jillery]

On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 08:30:14 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>> Since you asked, what I want is a cogent reply. Apparently you're
>> incapable of even a coherent reply. So enjoy playing with yourself.
>>
>Because I don't care what you want?? You need psychiatric help. Seriously.

If you don't care what I want, one can only wonder why you bothered to
ask.

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:q488lc9e7rb7vmp46...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 08:30:14 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:

>>>> Are you referring above to the same graphs you cited? I'm unable to
>>> determine the values for 1934 particularly.
>>>
>>And you want a Tootsie Roll?
>

>>> Since you asked, what I want is a cogent reply. Apparently you're
>>> incapable of even a coherent reply. So enjoy playing with yourself.
>>>
>>Because I don't care what you want?? You need psychiatric help. Seriously.
>
>
> If you don't care what I want, one can only wonder why you bothered to
> ask.
>

So it wasn't a rhetorical question??

[jillery]

On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 19:02:40 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

So you admit you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Robert Carnegie]

It's measurement.

Geographically, towns are deserts, with little
or no open water, soil, and vegetation. This
affects temperature, and it means that putting
all your weather stations in towns isn't good
for science - even if almost everyone lives in
towns.

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:9b49lctodfkfcncjj...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 19:02:40 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:q488lc9e7rb7vmp46...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 08:30:14 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Are you referring above to the same graphs you cited? I'm unable to
>>>>> determine the values for 1934 particularly.
>>>>>
>>>>And you want a Tootsie Roll?
>> >
>>>>> Since you asked, what I want is a cogent reply. Apparently you're
>>>>> incapable of even a coherent reply. So enjoy playing with yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>Because I don't care what you want?? You need psychiatric help. Seriously.
>>>
>>>
>>> If you don't care what I want, one can only wonder why you bothered to
>>> ask.
>>>
>>So it wasn't a rhetorical question??
>
>
> So you admit you have no idea what you're talking about.
>

I'm talking about the same thing you're talking about. You.

[eridanus]

Ok, it is your problem. I am too old to worry about. By the way, all this
about the warming and the CO2 gas you know it by your own intelligence, or
is it something you had read about in the holy scriptures?
Eri

[Sean Dillon]

Sorry... you'll have to be more specific. Is there a specific source you're calling "holy scripture," or is that just a lazy and dismissive label for all of the MANY, MANY studies that demonstrate CO2 increase, climate change, and its impacts?

I have looked at some of these studies, and even in a few cases known honest, hardworking, highly intelligent people who conducted them. I don't accept them as holy writ, but I also don't dismiss them out of hand because I didn't conduct the studies myself. Because that would be daft.

[Ernest Major]

Out of mild curiosity, do you

1) reject the observation that CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation, or
2) reject the corollary that absorption of infra-red radiation, and
reradiation back to the ground, increases the radiation flux at the
surface, and hence the equilibrium temperature, or
3) assert, contrary to all reason, that there's a level of CO2 at which
it has no further effect.
--
alias Ernest Major