I have had a thought, albeit a simplistic one:
*The region of space we live in, if there were no sun then the temperature around earth would be around -273 K. Ignoring for the purpose of looking at this one "Sol" variable, the intrinsic warming produced by Earth isotopes and stretching friction of various tidal forces, then let us assume that the earth receives all its heat from Sol.
Since the temperature of the earth on average is, say, 300° K (high I know, but the math goes simpler). Sol fluctuates conservatively about 0.2% in TSI in its cycles, or more. 0.2% from peak to trough.
0.2% of 300 K comes out to be a difference of about 0.6°K. Why is this figure not used. Then add to that the UV component of the sun's irradiance, energetic particles, etc. We can get a value of 1.5°K up or down depending on the sign of the sine.
People have poo-poohed the 0.2% figure as inconsequential. Why? This ∂ seems to have enough energy to account for most of the climate changes of the past when congruences from other factors are considered. Where am I wrong here?
An Inquirer - 14 years ago
A poorly worded question because knowledgeable people must answer "yes," and observers get the wrong impression. By cutting down the forests in Kenya, human activity changed the climate there. By replacing forests with row crops, human activity changed climates in the New World. By building cities and roads, human activity changes climates. But by emitting CO2? -- no reliable evidence of that!
Yo - 14 years ago
The climate is always changing & of course humans change climate eg cities are much warmer than their environs.
You mean to ask: "to what extent is the production of man-made CO2 causing catostrophic rises in temperature." or something along those lines
peter_dtm - 14 years ago
Canute did some research on this a while ago;
don't forget CO2 is plant food - not poisonous or dangerous....
Bob Llewellyn - 14 years ago
I'd like to see the bedwetters get a couple of predictions right before I get excited about paying more to get less.
Bill Grinner - 14 years ago
Well there's no way we can reduce consumption significantly so we must drastically (by 80%) reduce consumers.
We need to cull any people we don't need. Ones who don't contribute first.
Africa seems to raise its hand there.
If you want to have a child that's okay, but you'll need to take your own life immediately afterward.
If you want to make a good impact and save yourself some money at the same time than take the first step...........What are you willing to do for you in 2010?
I have had a thought, albeit a simplistic one:
*The region of space we live in, if there were no sun then the temperature around earth would be around -273 K. Ignoring for the purpose of looking at this one "Sol" variable, the intrinsic warming produced by Earth isotopes and stretching friction of various tidal forces, then let us assume that the earth receives all its heat from Sol.
Since the temperature of the earth on average is, say, 300° K (high I know, but the math goes simpler). Sol fluctuates conservatively about 0.2% in TSI in its cycles, or more. 0.2% from peak to trough.
0.2% of 300 K comes out to be a difference of about 0.6°K. Why is this figure not used. Then add to that the UV component of the sun's irradiance, energetic particles, etc. We can get a value of 1.5°K up or down depending on the sign of the sine.
People have poo-poohed the 0.2% figure as inconsequential. Why? This ∂ seems to have enough energy to account for most of the climate changes of the past when congruences from other factors are considered. Where am I wrong here?
A poorly worded question because knowledgeable people must answer "yes," and observers get the wrong impression. By cutting down the forests in Kenya, human activity changed the climate there. By replacing forests with row crops, human activity changed climates in the New World. By building cities and roads, human activity changes climates. But by emitting CO2? -- no reliable evidence of that!
The climate is always changing & of course humans change climate eg cities are much warmer than their environs.
You mean to ask: "to what extent is the production of man-made CO2 causing catostrophic rises in temperature." or something along those lines
Canute did some research on this a while ago;
don't forget CO2 is plant food - not poisonous or dangerous....
I'd like to see the bedwetters get a couple of predictions right before I get excited about paying more to get less.
Well there's no way we can reduce consumption significantly so we must drastically (by 80%) reduce consumers.
We need to cull any people we don't need. Ones who don't contribute first.
Africa seems to raise its hand there.
If you want to have a child that's okay, but you'll need to take your own life immediately afterward.
Anything less wouldn't be cop-out.
If you want to make a good impact and save yourself some money at the same time than take the first step...........What are you willing to do for you in 2010?