NASA co2 Cools Earth's Atmosphere.

page: 4
29
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 


It's hasn't been a 100 years of data that the current co2 model's are based on.

Incorrect. You don't need satellites or balloons to measure CO2 levels. There are various direct and indirect methods of determining pre-industrial levels. In any case, the Mauna Kea Observatory has been making continuous direct CO2 measurements for 54 years. In that period of time CO2 concentrations have risen from less than 320 ppm to almost 400 ppm, an increase of 25% in that period of time.




posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
reply to post by Phage
 


My stance is that this is only a normal cycle in earth's 4 billion year history. Can you state emphatically that at no time in the Earths history, CO2 levels have never risen as high as they are today, or that the global temperature has never been hotter ?


Not to make too fine a point of it, but major extinction events like Permian–Triassic extinction event have excess CO2 as a likely contributing factor.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Right back to my original question for you. Does anyone have any evidence of what caused co2 levels to rise before the industrial age.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 





Not to make too fine a point of it, but major extinction events like Permian–Triassic extinction event have excess CO2 as a likely contributing factor.


Thanks, man wasn't even around then.
So there ARE natural cause for a rise in co2 levels.

Either that or pre human factories and a oil industry before oil was even formed.
edit on 22-4-2013 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
reply to post by buddhasystem
 





Not to make too fine a point of it, but major extinction events like Permian–Triassic extinction event have excess CO2 as a likely contributing factor.


Thanks, man wasn't even around then.
So there ARE natural cause for a rise in co2 levels.


Cyanide can be either natural or synthesized. It doesn't mean it's wise to add some synthetic cyanide to your diet just because it's also produced in nature somewhere.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 


Right back to my original question for you. Does anyone have any evidence of what caused co2 levels to rise before the industrial age.
Yup. Some. Events like the formation of the Siberian Traps for example. Extensive (really extensive) lava flows (really huge volcanic eruptions lasting a really long time, longer than 100 years). Not to mention; lots of vegetation burned maybe, less vegetation to sequester CO2 maybe.

Volcanic activity doesn't seem to be a candidate nowadays though.
edit on 4/22/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 10:46 PM
link   
You guys have got to remember that historical evidence shows that almost every time there was a rise in CO2 in the atmosphere, whether natural or manmade, it made it harder for mankind to live. I personally would like it more if I didn't have to worry about my home blowing down. I made my home from wood, I am the wrong little piggy.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


So to sum up your stance you firmly believe that man is the cause of global warming. And you a man that makes no predictions , now predicts that global temp's will rise because of it ?
edit on 23-4-2013 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 


Well that wouldn't be a prediction as science shows that's exactly what has, is and will continue to happen.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Nope climate models are predictions, nothing is proven many scientists disagree with the "facts" and models .



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 

I think that CO2 produced by human activity is the dominant (vastly so) driver of the current warming trend. Yes.

I haven't made any prediction about it but models which are based on real science show that temperatures have risen because of rising CO2 levels and will continue to do so.

Sort of silly to take my tongue in cheek comment about predictions so seriously though.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   


TextI haven't made any prediction about it but models which are based on real science show that temperatures have risen because of rising CO2 levels and will continue to do so.
reply to post by Phage
 

Incorrect
You should have said some models !



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 


You're funny.
Did I say "all models"? But maybe you can point out models that don't show warming due to CO2 levels.
edit on 4/23/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 

I think that CO2 produced by human activity is the dominant (vastly so) driver of the current warming trend.


I assume that cow farts and cow burps are logically included in the human activity, since the cows are farmed by humans.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Been waiting for that.I will when I get off my phone. Are you saying that none exists ?



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





I think that CO2 produced by human activity is the dominant (vastly so) driver of the current warming trend. Yes


I quoted that to be clear on your statement in your last reply.

You also asked for other studies, well here is the first one.

We will start here I hope you have plenty of time.



This is out of the summary. As pre your last reply we are now discussing, co2's effect on global warming .

.
Non-CO2 GHGs
These gases are probably the main cause of observed global warming, with CH4 causing the largest net climate forcing. There are economic incentives to reduce or capture CH4 emissions, but global implementation of appropriate practices requires international cooperation. Definition of appropriate policies requires better understanding of the CH4 cycle, especially CH4 sources


I do not support any pollution of our planet. But I do dispute your claims that co2 is the dominant cause of global warming. You asked for a counter published study, well here you go.


www.pnas.org...



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I'm sorry Phage you asked for models and I gave you a study.

My bad here you go....................Models.



Just trying to lighten things up a little.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 


This is out of the summary. As pre your last reply we are now discussing, co2's effect on global warming .
Yes. Under the heading "Non-CO2 GHGs", methane has the greatest effect. And, as the chart from your source shows; CO2 has contributed 1.4 W/m2 from 1850 to 2000 and methane contributed half that amount.


CO2 produced the same amount of positive forcing as all of the other GHGs combined.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Ok you got my star.

Did you like the joke????



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty
 

I thought it was hot.





new topics
 
29
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join