Originally posted by EladarAt what point do you believe that the CO2 levels we be high enough such that, when in a cooling
How am I being coy? As I said, global warming is global warming. When the CO2 levels make it so that the earth is continuing to warm, even though we are in a cooling cycle, then I'll buy into global warming.
cycle, the earth would continue to warm?
Nemesio
Originally posted by Eladar…When the CO2 levels make it so that the earth is continuing to warm, even though we are in a cooling cycle, then I'll buy into global warming. …
How am I being coy? As I said, global warming is global warming. When the CO2 levels make it so that the earth is continuing to warm, even though we are in a cooling cycle, then I'll buy into global warming.
Until then, the earth will continue to heat and cool and we will be a bit warmer than otherwise it would have been. The world will not come to an end.
Using that logic, you will never believe global warming no matter how overwhelming the evidence and even if all the ice-caps melt!
There is a rough cooling cycle every 24 hours i.e. the day-night cycle -I would assume the temperature at nights will still generally drop no matter how bad global warming gets!
There is also, of course, the yearly cooling cycle when you go from summer to winter; again, I would assume the temperature in winters will still generally drop no matter how bad global warming gets!
I assume the same might be probably true for a natural cycle lasting about ~30 years.
Using that logic, you will never believe global warming no matter how overwhelming the evidence and even if all the ice-caps melt!
The ice caps melt every year, then they grow again during the colder months.
In any case, I was making reference to annual average global temps. That's what Global Warming is supposed to be all about.
Originally posted by EladarWhat observable or measurable evidence would compel you to acknowledge
The ice caps melt every year, then they grow again during the colder months.
that man is having an effect on the climate?
Obviously, we're producing more CO2 than we were 100k years ago. We can
approximate how much we're producing. At what levels would you say that we
are certainly having an impact on the environment?
The ice caps melt every year, but the degree to which they melt varies. If we
are raising the temperature, they will melt more than predicted. What amount
of melting would compel you to believe that we are impacting the environment?
Nemesio
Originally posted by EladarLet me rephrase:
Where did I ever say that man was not having an effect on the climate?
What observable or measurable evidence would compel you to acknowledge
that man is having an significant negative effect on the climate?
Obviously, we're producing more CO2 than we were 100k years ago. We can
approximate how much we're producing. At what levels would you say that we
are certainly having a significant negative impact on the environment?
The ice caps melt every year, but the degree to which they melt varies. If we
are raising the temperature, they will melt more than predicted. What amount
of melting would compel you to believe that we are significantly impacting
the environment negatively?
Nemesio
Originally posted by Eladar…The ice caps melt every year, then they grow again during the colder months.…
[b]Using that logic, you will never believe global warming no matter how overwhelming the evidence and even if all the ice-caps melt!
The ice caps melt every year, then they grow again during the colder months.
In any case, I was making reference to annual average global temps. That's what Global Warming is supposed to be all about.[/b]
SOME but not ALL of the ice of the “ice caps melt every year” but obviously that is not what I was talking about and you know it -what if ALL the ice melted? (I am not implying here that it will for this is hypothetical; I am just exposing the flaw in your logic).
-there would still be natural cooling cycles even then and some of them lasting several years -do you deny this?
…In any case, I was making reference to annual average global temps. That's what Global Warming is supposed to be all about....…
That is not quite true; Global Warming by the extra CO2 we put in the atmosphere is supposed to be all about the annual average global temperatures being higher than what they would have otherwise been if no extra CO2 was put in the atmosphere given the current natural cooling/warming cycles.
Therefore, you are totally misrepresenting what the greenhouse theory says by claiming it says there cannot be the occasional drop in annual temperature. An occasional drop in annual temperature over several years as a result of a natural cooling cycle would be perfectly logically consistent with the greenhouse theory.
However, the greenhouse theory is refutable by the evidence if the theory is wrong (which is one of the minimal requirements for a theory to be “scientific&rdquo😉 for IF there was a consistent drop in temperature over several years during what is clearly supposed to be a natural warming cycle when temperatures are supposed to be going up and NOT down! - then that would be clear empirical evidence that would clearly go against the greenhouse theory -as far as we know, that hasn’t happened yet.
What observable or measurable evidence would compel you to acknowledge
that man is having an significant negative effect on the climate?
I've already answered this question, but I'll do it again. When the earth is in a cooling cycle (as noted in the link I provided earlier) but the global temp continues to go up, then I'll believe the hype.
Andrew,
SOME but not ALL of the ice of the “ice caps melt every year” but obviously that is not what I was talking about and you know it -what if ALL the ice melted?
It all depends. If we were in a significantly long global warming cycle (the opposite of a little ice age) then I would say it was due to nature, not man. If it happens due to continued warming, even though we were in a cooling cycle, then I'd say it was because of man.
Originally posted by Eladar…It all depends. If we were in a significantly long global warming cycle (the opposite of a little ice age) then I would say it was due to nature, not man.
[b]What observable or measurable evidence would compel you to acknowledge
that man is having an significant negative effect on the climate?
I've already answered this question, but I'll do it again. When the earth is in a cooling cycle (as noted in the link I provided earlier) but the global temp continues to go up, then I'll believe the hype.
...[text shortened]... ntinued warming, even though we were in a cooling cycle, then I'd say it was because of man.[/b]
.…
If we were in a significantly long global warming cycle then that conclusion wouldn’t necessarily be the rational one because what conclusion would be the most rational one in the event of temperatures increasing would still entirely depend on how the actually observed increase in temperature would compare with what we would expect if the greenhouse theory was false.
-if the temperatures rise even higher than what we would have expected if the greenhouse theory was false then I think it would be reasonable to conclude that that extra increase in temperature (i.e. that extra increase in temperature that is above that increase in temperature that we would expect if the greenhouse theory was false) is due to man and the rest of the increase is natural.
…If it happens due to continued warming, even though we were in a cooling cycle, then I'd say it was because of man.. ....…
You wouldn’t believe how relieved I am to hear that 🙂
Originally posted by Eladar
I've already answered this question, but I'll do it again. When the earth is in a cooling cycle (as noted in the link I provided earlier) but the global temp continues to go up, then I'll believe the hype.
What do you take as sufficient evidence for believing that the earth is
in a cooling cycle? What do you take as sufficient evidence that global
temperatures are going up in such a circumstance?
It almost sounds like you don't believe that it's possible to predict the
impact that current behavior on future climate patterns. That is, if you
acknowledge that CO2 does contribute something to retaining heat on
the planet, then you should be able speculate at some amount of CO2
that would have an inarguable long-term warming effect. For example,
in 2000, the world produced 24 billion metric tons of CO2. If you think
that this has a negligible impact on the environment, how many metric
tons would you say would have an affect?
Nemesio
Originally posted by EladarThis link?
Read the link I posted earlier.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783
It does not answer my question. It seems to suggest that no amount
of CO2 could possibly have an affect on the global temperature.
Let me be clear: of course I acknowledge that there are natural global
warming and cooling cycles -- I think everyone acknowledges that.
The question is: Does CO2 have a noticable effect on the temperature
apart from these cycles? If so, how much? And, if our current effect on
the climate is only negligible, how much CO2 would we have to be
producing in order to have a noticable effect? How much for a deleterious
one?
Nemesio
The question is: Does CO2 have a noticable effect on the temperature
apart from these cycles? If so, how much? And, if our current effect on
the climate is only negligible, how much CO2 would we have to be
producing in order to have a noticable effect? How much for a deleterious
one?
I don't know if the amounts of CO2 we are producing today would ever be enough to create a problem.
Volcanoes can produce huge amounts of CO2 that go far beyond what we dump into the atmosphere yet the earth survives volcanoes. The amount of CO2 that gets dumped into the atmosphere from natural sources far outweighs what man dumps into the atmosphere. The earth also absorbs huge amounts of CO2. Since plants are one of the major CO2 cleaning mechanisms and a warming planet means a greener planet it seems reasonable to me that the earth's cycle can handle the situation. In other words, there is no tipping point at which the world will come to an end.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIt appears that you are correct about the Volcano thing. I guess new data has been released. I just did a google search and all of the links I'm finding support what you've said.
- Volcanoes don't produce more CO2 than man.
- Forests don't absorb CO2 unless they grow in size.
As for forests, there is more vegetation out there than trees. Besides, most of the oxygen in this world is created by plants in the ocean.
But as I said earlier, the only way we'll know when there is too much CO2 and the earth will continue to get hotter is to experience that amount of CO2.