[quote who="Jafo" reply="1708" id="3429281"]CO2 increase and temperature increase.[/quote] CO2 increase is not a physical process, it's the result of a bunch of physical processes ... So what does such a graph really tell you ? Let's just sit down and look at the observation in detail... it's about an offset of 1 degree celcius and/or a time offset of 200 years. Can we agree on this at the very least ?? And if so, what does that tell yo
[quote who="Daiwa" reply="1667" id="3428847"]This might be of interest to you, Geo.[/quote] I've read it, but the author of this article ignores historical evidence. Fact is, ancient history has shown that the earth can enter a hot-house state. Those hot-house states occur in the presence of very high levels of CO2. This proves to me that clouds cannot mitigate the effects of very high levels of CO2. [quote who="Daiwa" reply
[quote who="Daiwa" reply="1667" id="3428847"]This might be of interest to you, Geo.[/quote] I'll read that later and comment on it in a few days. After Xmas because Xmas is also important :)
[quote who="Daiwa" reply="1661" id="3428752"]Quoting GeomanNL, reply 1657Someone can ALWAYS put 2 graphs on top of each other and claim there's a relation between the two. Afterthought: When 2 graphs share the same x-axis measuring units (in this case, time), there is a relation between them. No 'claim' is necessary.[/quote] This thought is exploited by fuzzy guru's. And by people who don't have a clue what they're talking about, but want thei
[quote who="Jafo" reply="1663" id="3428796"]YOU CAN SAY 'temperature precedes CO2' simply because the timeline SHOWS it. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THERE IS A CONNECTION between them. it CAN BE ONLY COINCIDENTAL.[/quote] Sure... of course you can say that, it's no more than a description of the data. But Frogboy then concluded that the influence of CO2 is small. And to disprove his conclusion you've to show him a graph where a rise in CO2 precedes Temperat
I don't understand a single thing you've said. With shares the problem is there is no legal framework that protects the shareholder. There is no obligation to pay a shareholder. Loans are much better protected by law. There is an obligation by contract to pay the money back with interest. I don't think you've owned shares otherwise you wouldn't propose such a thing ... when things go well then the sky is the limit with share
[quote who="Phil Osborn" reply="197" id="3428156"]Instead of a micro-loan, you purchase shares in their future earnings.[/quote] Sounds like a lame idea to me. As share holder you're the last in line. If they take a loan as well (because shares are not enough to make some serious investments) and things go bad, then the banks will be first in line. In short: your money ends up with the banks. I've owned plenty of shares where banks or governments (by privatiz
No I'm not a troll....... it's just hard to explain. The whole point is that you cannot simply say that temperature precedes CO2, because that assumes there's a simple physical process that relates the two. Such a process simply does not exist... Oh maybe if I explain like this : Someone can ALWAYS put 2 graphs on top of each other and claim there's a relation between the two. But without a sound physical process
[quote who="Jafo" reply="1654" id="3428692"]That means...[no, just ignore some other side issue you keep repeating]...the SEQUENCE of EVENTS shown in the ice cores implies/indicates [which-ever you prefer] that temperature goes up...AFTER which CO2 levels rise.[/quote] Yes, of course you could conclude that from those data. But you cannot conclude that this means that temperature regulates CO2 in a real and physical sense, because there are also other physical processes that t
[quote who="Jafo" reply="1652" id="3428684"]Now you are 'arguing' something completely different[/quote] I'm just trying to convey the message that the world is ugly and "imperfect" and nature cannot give an uncomtaminated example of a relationship that is only limited to CO2 and Temperature. The ice cores are just as contaminated as all the rest. What he wants, simply does not exist. His conclusion is based on some fai
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="1650" id="3428602"]That's not evidence, Geo. [/quote] If that's not evidence, then what is ???? You got the before: high CO2 and high temperature, and you got the after: low CO2 and ice ages. And in the interim period, most of the CO2 was removed from the atmosphere by a process that had nothing to do with temperature. It can't get more obvious than that really. [quote who="Frogboy" reply="1650" id="3428602"]I'
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="1648" id="3428544"]Again, geo: provide a link to a source that shows long term temperature and CO2 levels where CO2 rises before temperatures[/quote] I've already shown numerous links throughout this topic about this and I'm tired of repeating myself. Worse, I get blamed by the moderator for repeating myself. Well ok just one more repeat then. Read more about the Azolla event. It was algae that more or less terraformed our planet and
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="1646" id="3428473"]Before we destroy our worldwide economy I think we should, at the very least, wait until the evidence points to CO2 rising coming BEFORE the temperature changes, not 10 years, 50 years or two centuries[/quote] That evidence is already there, but for some reason you assign a lot of credit to the Antarctic data set and you assign zero value to the rest. The problem perhaps is, that especially during an ice age, the te
Sure but Frogboy bases his conclusions on this article: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/ Which is outdated, that's pretty clear to me. The "lag" has already been reduced to 200 years. It's not nearly 800 years anymore. What will the next revision bring? When deriving temperature and CO2 data from ice cores, the scientists&
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="1634" id="3428231"]You seem like a really nice person. I mean that. But you have a level of cognitive dissonance that makes discussions on topics where you've made up your mind pointless. [/quote] I'm trying my best to understand your point. And I like to think about these things I've (partly) changed my mind about the influence of the ocean for example. And I've also (partly) changed my mind about nuclear power as a possible
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="1632" id="3428159"]Perhaps while you're at it you can show a single time in history where CO2 levels climbed before a temperature increase or fell before a temperature decrease. Seems like thst would be easy to find.[/quote] The end of the last ice age was preceded by a rise in CO2... I'm really curious why you don't appreciate the very high correlation between CO2 and Temperature that's been observed th
[quote who="Dr Guy" reply="1624" id="3428022"] The debate is HOW MUCH of an effect. CO2 has risen by 20% over the past 17 years, yet temperatures have not risen at all. So again, the question is how much does CO2 affect the temperature.[/quote] That has all been explained. I'll just repeat it again. In addition to CO2, China also releases enormous quantities of aerosols, which mitigate the temperature rise. When China would emit "cleaner" energy and the aerosols make way t
It's 400ppm, that's 0.4 parts per thousand, that's 0.04 parts per hundred, so that's 0.04% isn't it ? [quote who="Frogboy" reply="1618" id="3427945"]The sea levels today are about 2 meters higher than they were back during he Roman times[/quote] And how does 2 meters in 2,000 years even come close to (worst case scenario of) 1 meter in 100 years? It's probably going to be 1 meter, because the rate of CO2 produc
[quote who="Turchany" reply="1612" id="3427887"]but if the sea level rises in this century by a small amount like 1 meter huge areas will get under water[/quote] I think you're overstating this. One meter won't make much of a difference except for extremely low-lying areas, but world-wide it won't make much of a difference. But the melting is an unstoppable process and the real problems start a few centuries later, when the sea level rises 2 meters,
[quote who="Daiwa" reply="1607" id="3427820"]And Ephesus was a bustling seaport then - thanks to subsequent cooling it's now ~5 miles from any water.[/quote] That's because of tectonics... the land is pushed up by the African continent.
I don't have a dog but several ideas. - get a second, bigger and friendlier dog to keep the other dog company. - neuter - electric collar to train the dog - put the dog on a good leash or in a (big) cage whenever you are not around to keep an eye on it, to protect your children.
Ok, so basically concrete is a much, MUCH stronger construction material than brick. I did not know that, I yield. Basically any solution will involve a drop in wealth. It seems that most people don't want to give up on ... all the modern goods that we believe are invaluable. But just 50 years ago, nobody had a mobile phone or a computer and the world was fine without it. But to be honest I don't want to do without
