hey pws, you go tell this to the flooded people in India ?
Being representative of some wishing to blame something, although absent the ability to discern whether the cause being asserted by others is likely. The climate does seem to have been warming, as has occurred many times in cycles prior to even the presence of mankind; however blaming CO2 resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels is baseless. Feel free to blame the sun if you wish, although it may not satisfy your other ulterior motives.
Though we were in an ice age 10000 years ago, the world has in fact been COOLING over the past 2000 years, as evidenced by this article in the journal Science. Sorry to burst your bubble, but your simplistic caricatures of geologic history are not correct.
I don't mean to contest whether warming or cooling as occurred within any particular time period; as obviously cooling or warming as occurred depending on the period chosen. The question at hand is most often why; typically having a correspondingly different answer depending upon which effect is likely dominant during the period; which as an aggregate, affects the longest term trends. Figures don't lie, but liars figure; and thereby may often choose periods of time supportive of their attempted objectives, although not capable of holding water otherwise.
The "business" vs "green" contradiction is an illusion. Business are people and people are business. And humanity depends on a stable climate.
The real question is long-term general interests vs. short-term local interests: both are vital.
Meanwhile, we we don't know how real climate change is and if we can do something about it.
But we do know it's very important.
The fact that this kind of discussions become political and emotional is a fact of human life. It's what history is about. It's what the Bible is about. It's what every single story in Genesis is about.
The least we can do is have patience with eachother and stop explaining eachother's arguments in terms of who we are.
Have you actually read and understand the articles cited? I doubt it, as they affirm the dominance of water vapor's greenhouse contribution, yet fail to weasel out a coherent explanation of either how exactly CO2 is significant, how exactly the minor contribution through combustion of fossil fuels is, why the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is predominantly also determined by temperature through ocean buffering, or how the most dominant contributor, water vapor isn't, as being that temperature itself is the primary determinate of water vapors relative humidity concentration, i.e. raising temperatures tend to increases water vapor concentration being the primary contributor, regardless of CO2 concentration.
Have you actually read and understand the articles cited? I doubt it, as they affirm the dominance of water vapor's greenhouse contribution, yet fail to weasel out a coherent explanation of either how exactly CO2 is significant, how exactly the minor contribution through combustion of fossil fuels is, why the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is predominantly also determined by temperature through ocean buffering, or how the most dominant contributor, water vapor isn't, as being that temperature itself is the primary determinate of water vapors relative humidity concentration, i.e. raising temperatures tend to increases water vapor concentration being the primary contributor, regardless of CO2 concentration.
Perhaps you read these articles, but clearly you did not comprehend them in even the smallest way. The cited articles appear to be beyond your ken.
Curtis is right. Responding to you seems a waste of time. Instead I would suggest that you read quality articles that explain the the findings of real climatologists who actively work and research in the field of climate change (or paleoclimatology) and avoid politically motivated editorials and blogs by people who have no expertise in the field and who propose theories and explanations without bothering to do any research.
I've seen that guy's web site before. He's a retired historical geologist from the West Virginia coal industry and his knowledge of climatology is less than a typical 1st year college geology student's.
Also I would point out that CO2 buffering takes place over centuries while water vapor equilibration takes place over days. And unfortunately ocean absorption of CO2 comes at the cost of rising acidity (buffering be damned) which along with fresh water cascading produces planktonic, coral, general die off and leads to catastrophic extinction. Even if ocean acidity is from weak carbonic acid, it wreaks havoc on the system.
Comments
hey pws, you go tell this to the flooded people in India ?
Being representative of some wishing to blame something, although absent the ability to discern whether the cause being asserted by others is likely. The climate does seem to have been warming, as has occurred many times in cycles prior to even the presence of mankind; however blaming CO2 resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels is baseless. Feel free to blame the sun if you wish, although it may not satisfy your other ulterior motives.
Though we were in an ice age 10000 years ago, the world has in fact been COOLING over the past 2000 years, as evidenced by this article in the journal Science. Sorry to burst your bubble, but your simplistic caricatures of geologic history are not correct.
I don't mean to contest whether warming or cooling as occurred within any particular time period; as obviously cooling or warming as occurred depending on the period chosen. The question at hand is most often why; typically having a correspondingly different answer depending upon which effect is likely dominant during the period; which as an aggregate, affects the longest term trends. Figures don't lie, but liars figure; and thereby may often choose periods of time supportive of their attempted objectives, although not capable of holding water otherwise.
The real question is long-term general interests vs. short-term local interests: both are vital.
Meanwhile, we we don't know how real climate change is and if we can do something about it.
But we do know it's very important.
The fact that this kind of discussions become political and emotional is a fact of human life. It's what history is about. It's what the Bible is about. It's what every single story in Genesis is about.
The least we can do is have patience with eachother and stop explaining eachother's arguments in terms of who we are.
Have you actually read and understand the articles cited? I doubt it, as they affirm the dominance of water vapor's greenhouse contribution, yet fail to weasel out a coherent explanation of either how exactly CO2 is significant, how exactly the minor contribution through combustion of fossil fuels is, why the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is predominantly also determined by temperature through ocean buffering, or how the most dominant contributor, water vapor isn't, as being that temperature itself is the primary determinate of water vapors relative humidity concentration, i.e. raising temperatures tend to increases water vapor concentration being the primary contributor, regardless of CO2 concentration.
That doesn't merit a reply.
Have you actually read and understand the articles cited? I doubt it, as they affirm the dominance of water vapor's greenhouse contribution, yet fail to weasel out a coherent explanation of either how exactly CO2 is significant, how exactly the minor contribution through combustion of fossil fuels is, why the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is predominantly also determined by temperature through ocean buffering, or how the most dominant contributor, water vapor isn't, as being that temperature itself is the primary determinate of water vapors relative humidity concentration, i.e. raising temperatures tend to increases water vapor concentration being the primary contributor, regardless of CO2 concentration.
Perhaps you read these articles, but clearly you did not comprehend them in even the smallest way. The cited articles appear to be beyond your ken.
Curtis is right. Responding to you seems a waste of time. Instead I would suggest that you read quality articles that explain the the findings of real climatologists who actively work and research in the field of climate change (or paleoclimatology) and avoid politically motivated editorials and blogs by people who have no expertise in the field and who propose theories and explanations without bothering to do any research.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
and cyclical radiation from the sun:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
LOL
I've seen that guy's web site before. He's a retired historical geologist from the West Virginia coal industry and his knowledge of climatology is less than a typical 1st year college geology student's.
Also I would point out that CO2 buffering takes place over centuries while water vapor equilibration takes place over days. And unfortunately ocean absorption of CO2 comes at the cost of rising acidity (buffering be damned) which along with fresh water cascading produces planktonic, coral, general die off and leads to catastrophic extinction. Even if ocean acidity is from weak carbonic acid, it wreaks havoc on the system.