Global Warming - Scientific evidence

[EternalOptimist]

Are we all agreed that the level of atmospheric CO2 is increasing?

I mistrust many of the predictions of the consequences of this, but I'd be very surprised if it had no effect on anything at all.

I am not sure if it is by much. But I know the volume is about one third of what it was when we had massive animals roaming the planet and massive vegetation.
If the concentration got too much lower than it is now( say it went down to .66 of current) plants would die.
If you want to grow really big tomatoes, pump your greenhouse with co2.

AIUI the source of atmospheric CO2 is changing, even if the volume is not. A lot of it is now proven to be coming from fossil fuels.

[sasguru]

. But I know the volume is about one third of what it was when we had massive animals roaming the planet and massive vegetation.

How do you know that?

[BlasterBates]

Dont forget to go back further, just to check out what the climate scientists were saying about the imminent ice age (in the mid 70's)


“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

well for a while he looked wrong didn't he but now the "warm bliip" is fading....who knows

[sasguru]

Ah ha I geddit

Master Bates, EO and Mr. Clark are all in cahoots. Strongly in the pro-AGW camp they are conducting a type of Socratic dialogue in which the paucity and poverty of the arguments of the anti-AGW camp are highlighted.

Because if they believe the pish they are posting they must be incredibly stupid, but I don't believe that for a minute.

Very clever guys - keep it up.

[sasguru]

Actually why not start some of the following educational threads in the same vein and format:

"Creation Science: breaking the myth of scientific consensus for evolution"

or

"The earth is flat - all you have to do is look outside, innit".

[DimPrawn]

"The earth is flat - all you have to do is look outside, innit".

That actually made me laugh. Cheers.

[BlasterBates]

I didn't really have time to check on those comments from Mr Clarke earlier. But I've checked one:

As regards Miskolczi et al, I quote Gavin Schmidt of NASA 'It's like asking for a peer-reviewed rebuttal of a claim that the moon is made of green cheese.'

Still waiting for a rebuttal on this one.

A statement in whilst drinking coffee is not a scientific rebuttal,

The paper stands. You might not like it but it stands. If it is rubbish then one of his PhD students could prepare a rebuttal. Ah he hasn't. Wonder why. It is a prominent paper and is worthy of a response in a scientific debate, to force a revision or retraction, as in the example I gave earlier.


....and most of the other rebuttals posted were from blogs.

The debate is far from over.

I might check on some of the others.

There was an interesting new paper showing radiaition levels from satellite measurements emitted from earth haven't changed over 30 years. Kind of bears out the above paper.

...and don't forget the missing heat.

[sasguru]

I didn't really have time to check on those comments from Mr Clarke earlier. But I've checked one:



Still waiting for a rebuttal on this one.

A statement in whilst drinking coffee is not a scientific rebuttal,

The paper stands. You might not like it but it stands

....and most of the other rebuttals posted were from blogs.

The debate is far from over.

I might check on some of the others.

There was an interesting new paper showing radiaition levels from satellite measurements emitted from earth haven't changed over 30 years. Kind of bears out the above paper.

...and don't forget the missing heat.

You may be right. This consensus thing is overrated.
I've found this journal here where there are some interesting papers that debunk the myth of evolution. They're written by real PhDs and everything.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj

The debate is far from over.
I might check up on some of the others

I think they all deserve a rebuttal

[sasguru]

Hmmm I'm getting convinced by this creationism malarkey:

there's some interesting stuff:

I particularly like Those neanderthals were just cretins

explains much that goes on on this forum

[sasguru]

Wow, now I'm certain that evolution is pile of crap:

http://www.nwcreation.net/journalcreation.html

Just look at how many journals exist that rebut this now discredited theory.

I might find some others.

You just can't say they are crap over a cup of coffee.

I mean here's proof that the carbon dating doesn't work and the earth is 6000 years old

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...w-old-is-earth

Still waiting for a rebuttal on this one.

A statement in whilst drinking coffee is not a scientific rebuttal,

The paper stands. You might not like it but it stands.
fascinating.

I must find some more.

makes you think, innit.