Forums | MacLife

To put it mildly, if the ocean is saturated with CO2, we're in deep smurf. It acts as a partial sink, and it can't do that if it's saturated.

Last edited by jerwin (2009-07-07 10:49 am)

The climate will eventually reach an equilibrium with our influence.

Unfortunately, we might not survive the change.

jerwin wrote:

user wrote:

The climate will eventually reach an equilibrium with our influence.

Unfortunately, we might not survive the change.

Obviously, you haven't heard the inspiring true story of the Permian. Life will find a way.

Life, yes. Mankind? More unlikely.

jerwin wrote:

user wrote:

The climate will eventually reach an equilibrium with our influence.

Unfortunately, we might not survive the change.

Obviously, you haven't heard the inspiring true story of the Permian. Life will find a way.

Just not our life, or mayhaps in the forms we are accustomed to.

Tallgeese wrote:

resedit wrote:

I've already given a simple repeatable experiment that demonstrates CO2 levels naturally rise as warming happens, which is a very logical reason for there being higher CO2 levels during historic warmer periods.

The oceans are not soda bottles. Your "experiment" is irrelevant to this discussion.

Use your brain.
warm water, whether it's packages as soda or not, does not hold gases as well as cold water.

Soda is easy to demonstrate that with because it has a large amount of gas (primarily CO2) in it, hence why I suggested water.

It is extremely relevant, and a hell of a lot more so than computer models that output what they were programmed to output, and thus are only as good as the programming behind them.

God doesn't use a big Cray in the sky to run the climate. And that's really all the GW alarmists have.
Can you give me even a simple repeatable experiment that demonstrates carbon dioxide impacts global warming?

If not, then maybe you really ought to rethink whether or not it is science.

Last edited by resedit (2009-07-07 1:54 pm)

It's also been demonstrated that post WWII industrialization saw a huge increase in CO2 levels yet the world went through a cooling spell, not a warming spell, during that period.

There was also a lot of particulate matter thrown up into the atmosphere from the activities in WWII. And as to what caused 1944 to be the coldest winter in several decades, I'm not sure anyone has even researched it. There are still lots of questions, though the 3 centuries of increased industrial pollution is certainly a factor in the climate change.

resedit wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

resedit wrote:

I've already given a simple repeatable experiment that demonstrates CO2 levels naturally rise as warming happens, which is a very logical reason for there being higher CO2 levels during historic warmer periods.

The oceans are not soda bottles. Your "experiment" is irrelevant to this discussion.

Use your brain.
warm water, whether it's packages as soda or not, does not hold gases as well as cold water.

Soda is easy to demonstrate that with because it has a large amount of gas (primarily CO2) in it, hence why I suggested water.

It is extremely relevant, and a hell of a lot more so than computer models that output what they were programmed to output, and thus are only as good as the programming behind them.

Yes, climate scientists did take third grade science classes. They, however, took classes beyond that and are smart enough to determine how much CO2 comes out of solution given a temperature and can compare that to measured levels.

God doesn't use a big Cray in the sky to run the climate. And that's really all the GW alarmists have.
Can you give me even a simple repeatable experiment that demonstrates carbon dioxide impacts global warming?

If not, then maybe you really ought to rethink whether or not it is science.

Wait... are you denying that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas?

It would have been nice if NASA's carbon dioxide observer had made it into orbit.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

jerwin wrote:

It would have been nice if NASA's carbon dioxide observer had made it into orbit.

It wouldn't have made a difference. It's not about data, it's about belief.

And exactly what data do you have that demonstrates CO2 is a contributing factor in our current climate trends?

resedit wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

jerwin wrote:

It would have been nice if NASA's carbon dioxide observer had made it into orbit.

It wouldn't have made a difference. It's not about data, it's about belief.

And exactly what data do you have that demonstrates CO2 is a contributing factor in our current climate trends?

Comparison between climate forcings that shows that the rise in CO2 concentrations is the only possible cause of the rise in global temperatures since the 1800s?

resedit wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

jerwin wrote:

It would have been nice if NASA's carbon dioxide observer had made it into orbit.

It wouldn't have made a difference. It's not about data, it's about belief.

And exactly what data do you have that demonstrates CO2 is a contributing factor in our current climate trends?

Wow, really?

It must be nice to view science as a giant buffet where you can help yourself to whatever you like and ignore the stuff you don't.