On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 12:39 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> There's no plausible theory by which clouds could nullify the warming > caused by increased CO2 > If not clouds it's crystal clear that SOMETHING is capable of nullifying the warming caused by increased CO2 because during the late Ordovician era there was a HUGE amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, 4400 ppm verses only 380 today, and yet the world was in the grip of a severe ice age. In fact during the last 600 million years the atmosphere has almost always had far more CO2 in it than now, on average about 3000 ppm. >> 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, during the day at any >> given temperature it takes longer now for water to evaporate than it did 50 >> years ago; climate models can't explain why it exists today much less know >> if the effect will be larger or smaller in 2100. >> > > > Sure they can. It's due to increased aerosols and increased clouds. > The IPCC AR4 models predict the increased cloudiness. And what evidence can you provide that prove that particular climate model makes better predictions than nineteen dozen other climate models? > The uncertainty about cloud effects arises because low clouds and high > clouds have different effects and the height of clouds is harder to predict. > If you're uncertain what the cloud cover will be in 2100 you're uncertain about what the climate will be in 2100, it's as simple as that. > It's plenty clear that 4degC would not be a good thing. > Plenty clear? During the Carboniferous era the Earth was not .8 degrees warmer or even 4 degrees warmer but a massive 18 degrees warmer than now, and yet plant life was far more abundant then than it is now. > A lot more people die from starvation than freezing. > But more people die from freezing than heatstroke. And why do you thing the ideal temperature to grow the most food occurs when the temperature is .8 degrees cooler than now when we know that when it was 18 degrees warmer plants were more abundant than they've ever been before or sense? >> Even if it's a bad thing, as of 2014 no environmentalist has proposed a >> cure for global warming that wasn't far worse than the disease, although >> some non-environmentalists may have. >> > > > There are plenty of good proposals from environmentalist. > > > http://www.amyhremleyfoundation.org/php/education/impacts/NaturalCycles/PossibleRemedies.php > Where? As is customary for environmentalists all I see on that webpage is what won't work, coal "generates the most CO2", biofuels require extensive crop lands which would worsen emissions by reducing forested areas", and nuclear power "suffers risk of some nations misusing the technology for threat purposes" >> In 2100 if we find that global warming is causing us serious trouble we >> can deal with it then when out toolbox for fixing things will be vastly >> larger than it is now. >> > > > Yeah, we'll just fire up our tokomaks, cold fusion, and LFTRs and pump > all that CO2 down the fracking wells, neutralize the ocean acidity and > spray sulfur into the stratosphere. What could be easier. > Cold fusion is bullshit but other than that you just may have a viable plan there! John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
