Just using the graph to point out there are clear cycles that occur and disipate the CO2 in the atmosphere and reduce temperatures. Now unless every 100,000 year man has to intervene to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere, there is no evidence to suggest that the planet will not continue going through these cycles as per usual. Unless we are suggesting that every 100,000 years the most advanced species at the time introduces a carbon tax to reduce global warming. I would have to disagree with this if it is what you are leading towards and I can't see a T-Rex holding a pencil to jot down a carbon tax let alone orchestrate all the other dinosaurs in an effort to breath less.
Interesting idea. I like it and it does make alot of sense in theory. You wouldn't by any chance have links to articles you could provide us?
I would google, but I am on iphone and it is a pain in the arse. How have scientists decided that the earth has changed tilt etc? How have they calculated the past has had different orbit paths etc?
But "we" (as in the human race) haven't increased CO2 from 280ppm to 392ppm in less than 100 years... I mean, there simply is no proof of that!
Everything you write is quite true there. Unfortunately the people that study the sun will tell you the sun is not doing any more than its 11 year cycle right now: NASA/Marshall Solar Physics, and the effect of that would be for temp and co2 levels to go up and down very slightly, however, we are not seeing even that because it is being effectively masked by the greater effect of the driving force of more man made co2.
Yes we have, you have evidence aliens put it there? The decrease of c14 in atmospheric co2 tells us that the extra co2 has come from stored carbon, ie fossil fuels.
Sorry, Im not one of the scientists that has done all those calculations, I could read it all up and offer you an explanation, though Im sure too much would be lost in translation. Best you read the sites on Milankovitch cycles later and see for yourself.
If the objective is to avoid AGW simply planting trees isn't going to get it done. It's not a bad thing to do per se though and may be used to remove some of the CO2 already emitted. If we dig up sequestered Carbon and release it into the atmosphere, it acts to trap heat as soon as it is released. Yes, trees absorb Carbon as they grow, but it's at a much slower rate than you can burn the fossil Carbon and release the CO2. It's also absorbed more slowly in the early stages of growth than the later stages of growth (when the trees are larger) so if you integrate the warming caused by the CO2 over time, more warming occurs in the early stages. If you planted enough trees to absorb sufficient Carbon to exactly match the amount released, warming still occurs over the time it takes for the trees to reabsorb the Carbon. You also have to avoid the tree decomposing at the end of its life and re-releasing the Carbon or you can't simply release more Carbon and grow more trees (in that same area in which they are grown). Generating biochar has been suggested but continually digging up old black rocks in one place and burying new black rocks in another doesn't make much sense. (If you need to reduce atmospheric CO2, just burying the new black rocks does). Avoiding releasing the sequestered fossil Carbon in the first place is necessary. Pricing those emissions discourages doing so while making alternatives more attractive in comparison.
Well.. That settles it! So simple.. They should give you the Nobel Prize. You people keep asking for evidence and choose to ignore it all when provided but never seem to have any for your side. So.. Where's your evidence to the contrary? Evidence.. Not opinion.
Sorry couldn't resist. I like how that article is summarised: "I think the new findngs are awesome. For one, we really haven’t been studying our weather with any great accuracy or scientific instruments for that long – only about 5 decades. For those of us who enjoy viewing sunspots, you also might have noticed that when sunspot activity is high, it really does seem to affect our weather – especially cloud cover. Global warming is real, and there is no doubt that mankind has contributed to it. However, take solar findings very much to heart because my opinion is the Sun plays a more important role in our climate than we could have ever dreamed possible." There are also solar cycles, solar maximum and solar minimum which have an impact on the climate conditions. Not to mention the magnetic field of Earth. In fact the poles are due to reverse in the not to distant future if memory serves...
I will say this now in this thread. Keep it civil. if you do not have a nice way of replying, STFU. I will not close this thread, I will however have no issue putting people on either temp bans or moderated posts should the name slanging start. Many of us disagree...but let's keep it civil, i for one want to know more, as much as some people annoy me, there are always things to learn. Consider this a first and final warning. Fair enough will read into it when I am able, hopefully tonight. So, direct action would be best correct? I just feel that rather than taxing a country to hell, why not embrace the changes that need making? Create jobs and income for the govco with nuclear plants while shutting down fossil fuelled plants. Create work for the dole schemes that create forests (not just tree's but trying to reconstruct great forests) to help with the co2 intake etc. Allow a maximum of 2 (maybe 1 large car one small car) cars per household before EMISSION charges are applied to registrations etc. Pricing carbon dioxiude will do nothing in this country but drive more jobs overseas to countries that dont have such taxes and drive prices up. Surely the simple way of creating wealth and a clean environment for this country is through infrastructure and jobs while reducing fossil fuel reliance.
Not sure about the ozone layer but in terms of AGW, yes. CH4 in the atmosphere has a GHG effect over a century of about 20 times that of CO2 but were we to change agricultural practices eg. the type of animals raised or modify them or their stomach contents to reduce the generation of CH4, unlike CO2, the effect disappears pretty quickly (over the course of decades). That is why, while CO2 contributes only about 70% of AGW, it is the major focus atm. CO2 persists in the atmosphere for much longer, only being removed slowly as it is mixed into deep ocean water over centuries. And that mixing has other adverse effects.
Thats the point being debated in my opinion, what is the "greater" driving force. Are we humans responsible for 1% of climate fluctuations, or are we responsible for 99%. Im personally not willing to pick sides yet but I will say that the study of the sun and other parts of our solar system is very much still in its infancy and far from being understood. Geology and physical sciences are far more advanced, and easier to study (we can put a research team in antartica but not on the surface of the sun). This is why i believe the debate is going the way of man made CO2. Any idiot undergrad student can pull some industrialization stats, BOM climate data, quote a heap of past research, whack it in a blender and BAM! another Global warming research paper is born. Its much harder to get credible scientific infomation into the public relating to factors which are not yet fully understood, and may never be. Its an interesting debate but too much based on Theories and educated guesswork. When I hear Politicians and government climate advisers(with their economics degrees) talk about scientific FACTS, I get quite frustrated. Theres no such thing as FACT in science. Only supportive evidence and contradictory evidence. Something is only true until its dis-proven, and only scientifically accepted when there is enough supporting evidence for it regardless of the validity of the concept. And thats why I didnt study Science......
Something else to consider. Magentic poles. North Magnetic Pole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia They are moving... alot... and they have an effect on weather patterns, etc. They could very well be contributing to climate change. Vorchester.com - News » News Archive » Magnetic Pole Shift & Climate Change There is research and evidence that the sun may very well be playing a part. Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says Is the melting even on Mars caused by man too? Things to think about. I'm not sure about the cause or climate change, but I can say with some confidence that man is not directly to blame AND that the balance will be restored. Hmmm...
Perhaps the the series of mega earthquakes (they're still going) in japan, particularly the 9.0 one that apparently shifted our orbit and sped up the time by a small amount will come into play.
