Breathingearth

[Mark]

http://www.breathingearth.net/

Website showing the real rate the world is 'breathing' out CO2 across the globe, together with the population changes - in front of your eyes.
Very sobering.

[woodburner]

What is the problem about CO2, apart from being generated by using up a possibly finite resource?

Something to ridicule because it doesn’t support the consensus.

Anyone who can only reply by calling me a climate change denier need not bother to answer. Why not try some science and not just an appeal to authority by quoting some questionable consensus?

[clv101]

What is the problem about CO2...

I can write you a essay about physical science of greenhouse gases, how the CO2 molecule works, how the greenhouse effect works, why Earth is the temperature it is (and not 20 degrees hotter or colder). I could present you with evidence going back to the 19th Century with Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius figuring out the role CO2 plays in the Earth system. More recently there's a wealth of paleoclimate evidence establishing an empirical link between atmospheric concentrations and temperature. With that established, we can estimate climate sensitivity, and future temperature projections and their impacts.

However it would be in vain. If you had any real interest in educating yourself, you'd have done it already and don't need any synthesis from me. There is literally nothing I can write which will result in you accepting the prevailing view of climate science.

As an aside, we live in the so-called information age. It's never been easier for lay people to find stuff out, educate themselves. However not only do many not take advantage of this amazing time, they actually publicly promote their intentional ignorance, appear happy with it. Why?

[BritDownUnder]

I like this video better but it needs some doomy music and not a scientists narration.

All those extra triatomic (and greater) molecules just love to absorb long wave infra-red radiation.

[woodburner]

What is the problem about CO2...

I can write you a essay about physical science of greenhouse gases, how the CO2 molecule works, how the greenhouse effect works, why Earth is the temperature it is (and not 20 degrees hotter or colder). I could present you with evidence going back to the 19th Century with Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius figuring out the role CO2 plays in the Earth system. More recently there's a wealth of paleoclimate evidence establishing an empirical link between atmospheric concentrations and temperature. With that established, we can estimate climate sensitivity, and future temperature projections and their impacts.

However it would be in vain. If you had any real interest in educating yourself, you'd have done it already and don't need any synthesis from me. There is literally nothing I can write which will result in you accepting the prevailing view of climate science.

As an aside, we live in the so-called information age. It's never been easier for lay people to find stuff out, educate themselves. However not only do many not take advantage of this amazing time, they actually publicly promote their intentional ignorance, appear happy with it. Why?

You could? Then can you explain why the Roman warm period occurred when there was as far as I know no CO2 increase, or the medieval warm period, or why the IPCC temperature predictions always exceed the measured figures? Or why the world has survived prriods of much higher CO2 concentrations, or why plants grow better with CO2?

I did say those who can’t do it without ridicule need not bother, but that is what you have done, and given it away by your statement. “...the prevailing view of climate science�. That implies “consensus�, and consequently is an oxymoron.

In your last paragraph you also imply I am ignorant. That is not the response I expect from a professional scientist.

I don’t disagree that CO2 is a factor in the earth’s climate temperature, but I’m not convinced it is the major factor.

[kenneal - lagger]

.........
I don’t disagree that CO2 is a factor in the earth’s climate temperature, but I’m not convinced it is the major factor.

So the amateur Woodburner with no known qualifications or experience in climate science, who gets his information from websites paid for by Fossil Fuel company owners and TV presenters paid for by the same fossil fuel company owners, knows better than people who spend all their working hours studying the actual science!

I know who I would believe and its not the person with no known qualifications in any science.

[kenneal - lagger]

This post explains that the medieval warm period was warmer in the Northern Atlantic Basin but the Pacific was cooler so overall the earth was not warmer.

There is also the possible case of Europe getting colder in the future as climate change/global warming causes a slow down/stopping of the Gulf Stream. The earth will not be cooler but the heat distribution will change and another area of the earth will get warmer still as Europe cools.

Why has the earth survived periods with much higher CO2 concentrations? Milankovitch cycles. Google it. There's hours of stuff which will explain how they work.

Why do plants grow better with CO2? Because they rely on it to synthesise carbohydrates and sugars. No CO2, no plant growth. More CO2, not always more plant growth because that growth depends on a lot of other factors such as heat at the right time and at the right level; water in the right quantities at the right time; and the right insects living at the right temperature at the right time to pollinate them. All these factors are influenced by the weather and climate in an area. If that climate changes abruptly, as is happening now, those plants could well die out despite more CO2.

There are answers to all your questions and more, Woodburner, on the www.skepticalscinece.com website but then you don't want to use that website because it could explode all your pet theories with actual facts.

[Vortex2]

Shades of RGR ...

[kenneal - lagger]

Shades of RGR ...

Not me, I hope!

[kenneal - lagger]

.......the prevailing view of climate science�. That implies “consensus�, and consequently is an oxymoron. ................

There is a prevailing view and consensus on electricity so that doesn't work! There is consensus that the human body breaths in oxygen and breaths out CO2 so that can't be true! There is consensus that the moon revolving around the earth causes tides in the ocean so that can't be true either!

Am I ridiculing you, Woodburner? Yes, because your daft views deserve ridicule!