South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

July 21, 2019, 04:04:58 AM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Please read the forum rules before posting.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Global warming

 (Read 6193 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Tweefo
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1527



WWW
« Reply #15 on: January 21, 2011, 16:48:47 PM »

They build the cars that we buy. SUV's to take the kid to school, a Humvee to drive in suburban streets because there might be something on the road and generally far to big cars for what it is used for. We are wasting. If the fuel price double maybe we will wake up.
Logged
Hermes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +18/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 1137



« Reply #16 on: January 21, 2011, 16:58:19 PM »

Am I the only one here that thinks burning thousands of tons of hydro-carbons creates a lot of CO2?
The point was that, by tonnage carted, CO2 emissions from ships are relatively low.   That does not mean that it should be ignored.

On the anthropogenic origin of climatic warming, there are several counterarguments.   These include:

1. There was a medieval warm period when Greenland was mild and Britian planted with vineyards, unassociated with any increase in greenhouse gasses.   How do you explain that?

2. Ice cores indicate that the greenhouse gas cycle lags the temperature cycle.  That implies that rises in temperature cause greenhouse gasses, not vice versa.

3. The average atmospheric concentration of CO2 over the last 500m years was 2000ppm, compared to only 390ppm today, so what's the big deal?

4. The part of the radiation spectrum where CO2 has the most significant greenhouse effect is near 15 micron.  At this wavelength current levels of CO2 have reached an atmospheric saturation point and any further addition of CO2 will have little impact on the climate.

Comments?



« Last Edit: January 21, 2011, 18:44:07 PM by Hermes » Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3070



« Reply #17 on: January 21, 2011, 17:40:51 PM »

Quote
1. There was a medieval warm period when Greenland was mild and Britian planted with vineyards, unassociated with any increase in greenhouse gasses.   How do you explain that?

Can be as easy as it signalling heightened sun activity.

Quote
2. Ice cores indicate that the greenhouse gas cycle lags the temperature cycle.  That implies that rises in temperature cause greenhouse gasses, not vice versa.

I pointed out earlier that the two are interlinked. Raise the temperature, melt ice, release methane, that raises the temperature some more.... etc.

Quote
3. The average atmospheric concentration of CO2 over the last 500b years was 2000ppm, compared to only 390ppm today, so what's the big deal?

As far as I know the universe is only around 13b years old.  WTF!!

Quote
4. The part of the radiation spectrum where CO2 has the most significant greenhouse effect is near 15 micron.  At this wavelength current levels of CO2 have reached an atmospheric saturation point and any further addition of CO2 will have little impact on the climate.

So now that we can control for sun activity, why does it seem to be having an effect nonetheless?
Logged
Hermes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +18/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 1137



« Reply #18 on: January 21, 2011, 18:51:14 PM »

Quote
As far as I know the universe is only around 13b years old.  WTF!!

 Embarrassed

500 000 000 years, that should be.

I've cheated and changed my posting.  Evil
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.21 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page February 13, 2019, 17:52:21 PM
Privacy Policy