And yet it cooled. And something always survives, probably without even trying. We can try, and we probably wouldn't have to try that hard.

There is evidence of temperature increases on the order of 10F over the span of decades several times in earth's history. Some as early as 40,000 years ago (IIRC). Yet early Man survived that without the technology we have today. Every interglacial has seen temperature increase --> CO2 increase --> temperature decrease --> CO2 decrease. This says two things to me: 1) if anything is going to be called a precursor it's temperature - CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around, and 2) rising temperature + rising CO2 concentrations does not equal run-away feedback loop. If that were the case, then temperature would never have fallen while CO2 remained high.

During interglacial periods they both follow each other. Temperature rise results in more co2 and more co2 results in more temperature rise. Amplification rather than runaway.

What is the amplification factor of CO2? In other words, at our current level of CO2 in the atmoshpere, how much will that amplify the warming?

In other words, if there were two huge identical greenhouses (exact temperature and everything else) and one of them all of a sudden had 2x the CO2 as the other, how much more hotter (amplify) would this make the greenhouse compared to the one with 1/2 the CO2?


CO2 is also released into the atmosphere by decay of plant and animal matter, evaporaton of oceans, respiration (breathing), volcanic eruptions, and forest fires.



When I think about the several hundred year lag of CO2 to temperature, I see a possible connection between how CO2 is produced and the lag: The earth heats up, more land is exposed due to ice melting, more plants and animals come into being, more CO2.

Kramer

__________________
“It's time to admit that public education operates like a planned economy, a bureaucratic system in which everybody's role is spelled out in advance and there are few incentives for innovation and productivity. It's no surprise that our school system doesn't improve; it more resembles the communist economy than our own market economy."
Albert Shanker, former president of the American Federation of Teachers

Still, if that's true, what causes the temperature to decrease when the CO2 level is at a maximum then?

__________________
843rd Bomb Wing - Strategic Air Command
"Peace is our Profession"

"Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants.
" - James Wilson, U. S. Supreme Court Justice and Signer of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

I think that is exactly what happens. You just described the greenhouse effect essentially.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

I think the onus is on you to provide some kind of proof - it is YOU who is swimming against the tide of reputable scientific consensus.

The material is widely available, has been discussed at length in a number of reputable journals, without rebuttal.

If you have some genuine evidence that there anthropogenic factors do not influence the warming that we all know is happening on this planet, I ask you to bring it forward.

If there IS genuinely some other cause for what is happening now, then we need to understand THAT so we can address it.

Proof of what? The negative? You want me to prove that CO2 is not causing the planet to warm? How ridiculous.

I'm not the one making claims, Daisy, you are. Usually in science someone makes a claim and backs that up with some proof. So far, you've made several statements and have offered proof for none of them. This is religion.
You mean, without rebuttal you care to read.
I never made that claim.
Why? Because an extra 1C every 100 years is deadly?

If there are two aspects to the temperature rise - the primary forcing, and the co2 level (the amplification) then it only takes the primary forcing to fall to cause temperatures to drop, even if co2 is left at the same level.

I described how CO2 is produced based on ice core graphs and my limited knowledge of climate science. What the ice core graphs fail to show is the greenhouse effect because the temperature rose hundreds of years before the CO2 increased. The greenhouse effect says when the CO2 rises, this will cause the temp to rise and it will which the ice core data doesn't show.

Kramer

__________________
“It's time to admit that public education operates like a planned economy, a bureaucratic system in which everybody's role is spelled out in advance and there are few incentives for innovation and productivity. It's no surprise that our school system doesn't improve; it more resembles the communist economy than our own market economy."
Albert Shanker, former president of the American Federation of Teachers

Speaking of swindles, how come Al Gore wouldn't submit his testimony to the committee 48 hours in advance of his testifying on Capital Hill on global warming?

One would think that with the backing of the thousands of IPCC scientists (along with his oscar and Nobel peace prize nomination), he would have submitted it and been able to defend it.

This shows to me that he's afraid to be challanged by the data in his testimony. Or he can't back it up...


Kramer

__________________
“It's time to admit that public education operates like a planned economy, a bureaucratic system in which everybody's role is spelled out in advance and there are few incentives for innovation and productivity. It's no surprise that our school system doesn't improve; it more resembles the communist economy than our own market economy."
Albert Shanker, former president of the American Federation of Teachers

Global warming saved our lives, there's no ice age anymore...
Dramatic temperature rising isn't our problem since there is none
All throughout history there where climatic variations.

But you might call the ozone layer a problem, none of today but one of tomorrow

I couldn't find anybody yet who could convincingly advertise UV radiations as especially healthy

I wonder if the AAAS Board statement (Dec 2006) is good enough for you?

It opens with:

This paper was approved by the AAAS Board of Directors, Cato, who are all eminent scientists.

I am sure you are aware also Cato, that the AAAS is the world's largets scientific society.

If I am religious about this Cato - these are the high priests I listen to.

Who are your high priests?

No, it's not good enough for me, Daisy. See, I don't like it when people tell me what to think. I like to think for myself. I like people to have to prove to me the statements they make.
So what? Just because "eminent scientists" say so doesn't make it truth, Daisy. Science is not done by vote. In fact, several statements in there are not only demonstrably false, but are also rejected by many AGW proponents.
Well, that seals it, I guess. You used to be a reasonable person, Daisy. I don't know what happened. That bums me out.

My high priests are logic, reason, and the scientific method, Daisy.

The greenhouse effect is already in play at the time of the glacial and interglacial periods.

The greenhouse effect does not necessarily mean the temperature will rise, it depends on the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere. The greenhouse effect is generally what climate scientists credit for keeping the earth at hospitable temperatures for ecosystems to evolve and persist over long periods of time.

What you are looking at in the ice core data is evidence that the glaciation and retreat of glaciers has a cause that is separate from the greenhouse effect. I.e., the sun, the earths orbit around the sun, etc....

What worries AGW theorists is that the earth will overheat to due to a heightened runaway greenhouse effect that coincides with an already natural warming. What happens as a result is not understood. One theory is that the earth will scorch from an extreme greenhouse effect, triggering positive feedback loops, not able to cool itself. Another theory is that earth will produce a negative feedback loop, resulting in rapid cooling. Other theories are that the consequences will be manageable and only insurance rates will rise.

I would prefer we did not experiment with it.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

great.

you point out which ones and we'll discuss those.