Hi meekerdb  

You can argue about numbers until the cows come home,
but what IS clear, plainly and patently clear, 
is that there were no automobiles after 
the last ice age to create CO2 to start warming again. 

Case closed.



Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
9/17/2012  
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him  
so that everything could function." 
----- Receiving the following content -----  
From: meekerdb  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-09-16, 18:28:50 
Subject: Re: Before the automobile: Reconstructed global temperature over 
thepast 420,000 years 


On 9/16/2012 1:10 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:  
On 9/16/2012 12:43 PM, John Clark wrote: 

On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 1:44 AM, meekerdb  wrote: 



> In fact it [CO2] has been less than half the current level during the last 
> 600 thousand years 

There have been at least 4 times in the last 600 thousand years when the CO2 
levels were nearly as high as they are now.  

Well, if you call 290ppm "nearly as high as" 392ppm. 


And the link between CO2 and temperature is far from clear.  

Of course their correlation might be coincidence. 




During the late Ordovician period 450 million years ago there was a huge amount 
of CO2 in the atmosphere, about 4400 ppm verses 380 today, and yet the world 
was in the grip of a severe ice age.  

Yes, and the Sun was several percent dimmer.  It brightens about 7%/billion-yr. 

During the last 600 million years the atmosphere has almost always had far more 
CO2 than now, abut 3000 ppm on average. The only exception was a period that 
lasted from 315 million years ago to 270 where there was about the same amount 
of CO2 as we have now. The temperature was about the same then as it is now 
too, and during the late Ordovician that I mentioned before it was much colder, 
but other than a few very brief ice ages during the last few million years the 
temperature has always been warmer than now. 


And, as you said, except for the recent few hundred thousand years, the CO2 was 
higher. 




> But it is not just the level that is worrisome, it is the rapidity of 
> increase, which would appear as instantaneous on the paleoclimate studies. 

If you adjust the scale of a graph you can always make a gentle rise look like 
a near vertical wall.  


Yes, that's why historical graphs covering hundreds of thousands of years make 
it appear that CO2 and temperature changes in the past were as rapid as those 
over the past 100yrs. 




 >> And I think people sometimes forget that CO2 is not the most important 
 >> greenhouse gas, water vapor is 

> But water vapor equilibrates with ocean temperature very quickly, whereas CO2 
> takes hundreds of years to come into equilibrium.  Water vapor is the most 
> important green house gas, but it acts as a positive feedback, amplifying 
> other warming (or cooling) effects. 


If water always produced positive feedback then with all the water on this 
planet life would never have existed in the first place, but things are more 
complicated than that. Let me ask you something, if the world's temperature 
increases will that create more clouds or fewer clouds? It's a very simple 
question with profound consequences because clouds regulate the amount of solar 
energy that runs the entire climate show.  

It's even more complicated than that.  Whether clouds increase or decrease 
warming depends on how high they are and whether they are on the day side 
(cooling) or the night side (warming).  But since they are a feedback effect 
they can't turn the warming effect of CO2 into net cooling, they can only damp 
or amplify it.  Uncertainty about clouds is one of the reasons climate models 
predict a wide range of temperatures, from 2.0C to 5.0C, for doubling the CO2 
level. 

Brent 


Increased temperature means more water evaporates from the sea, but it also 
means the atmosphere can hold more water before it is forced to form clouds. So 
who wins this tug of war? Nobody knows, its too complicated. Water vapor is a 
far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 and unlike CO2 it undergoes phase 
changes at earthly temperatures, it can be a solid a liquid or a gas which 
makes it much more complicated than CO2 which is always just a gas, at least on 
this planet.    

And then there is the important issue of global dimming, the world may be 
getting warmer but it is also getting dimmer. For reasons that are not clearly 
understood but may be related to clouds, at any given temperature it takes 
longer now for water to evaporate than it did 50 years ago. 

  John K Clark 



John, 

    Did you see the study of the connection between cloud formation and cosmic 
rays? 



--  
Onward! 

Stephen 

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html 
--  
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group. 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to