John, I don't know where you are getting your data but the data I've seen shows a fairly neat CORRELATION of global temps and CO2. Would you like to give us a link that shows otherwise that is authoritative?
Edgar On Saturday, March 8, 2014 1:16:16 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 12:39 AM, meekerdb <[email protected]<javascript:> > > 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 > > ... -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
