Part 27A: Climate Change - The Evidence For Climate Change WITHOUT Computer Models Or The IPCC

[@trangia12]

When during the history of the earth did the climate NOT change. So now it’s caused by man so let’s sell “carbon credits”.

[@MrAnders1976]

CO2 level and temperature correlated very nicely.. Decreasing CO2 help initiate the rapid glaciation cycles seen 2.7 million years ago that started with a shorter 41 kyr cycle that later was replaced by a longer 100 kyr cycle. THe last 800.000 years the CO2 has fluctuated between 195 ppm (glacial maxima) and 295 ppm (interglacial max), we are now at 400 ppm which you have to go back 15 million years to find similar levels.. With man's even continueing burn of fossil fuel we will probably get to at least 500 ppm. And I think maybe man has prevented future ice ages for a couple of million years..

[@Desertphile]

"CO2 level and temperature correlated very nicely.." In fact they correlate more strongly than between smoking tobacco and lung cancer. PPMCC as of year 2013 is 0.93

[@maximus78028]

So even if we calculate the sun also that means the earth rose in temp naturally. I mean without human activity the earth temp still rose up and the process even repeated. 2) so is he saying humans are causing global warming or not? It's like he is arguing both at times 3) when global ice expanded two times previously was the activity of the sun the same each time? I ask because he said the sun has been cooler this time (currently)

[@kenmarriott5772]

China is not curbing CO2 emissions and there might be up to 100 years of coal available. What is your prediction of now until year 2100?

[@rstevewarmorycom]

China is also increasing its renewables and renewable starts faster than any nation on earth. It may be using more coal right now, but soon its coal use will be falling faster than any other nation. And that's the way the Chinese Communist Party has planned it for the last 20 years. One of the advantages of a planned economy!!

[@kenmarriott5772]

So global warming or climate change (if you buy into it) is a non-problem like Y2K or the hole in the ozone. Since natural gas finds have increased, the cost of natural gas has dramatically dropped. The U.S. has unintentionally reduced its CO2 footprint by switching to the more economical energy source. See, natural gas produces more heat per CO2 released.

[@rstevewarmorycom]

No, it's a great problem. But you won't be controlling a billion Chinese any time soon. While they are making substantial progress at renewables, we should be doing the same, if not more. The cost of methane is still greater than the cost of rewewable energy, BOTH solar and wind power. The cost of nuclear is still a LOT more than the cost of either major renewable. Solar and wind are cheaper per Watt generated than ANY other source RIGHT NOW!! Wind power in Texas is cheaper than coal! Solar power in Dubai is cheaper than even methane. Wind power in Texas is 3.5 cents a kWatt-hr. In Dubai the new solar facility gives power at 4.5 cents per kWatt-hr. ALL fossil AND nuclear sources are ALREADY MORE expensive!!

[@rstevewarmorycom]

The hole in the ozone WAS a problem, but by treaty we have succeeded in reducing the size of the ozone hole, by actual measurement. The same must be done for global warming. Natural gas is still MORE expensive than solar AND wind.

[@Desertphile]

"This does not change the challenge to explain why the Earth was much hotter than today when the sun was much weaker than today." Of course only greenhouse gases explain why.

[@permahome]

I'm gonna take it you're being sarcastic with the last remark and if not I apologize and ask you what you meant. But in the case you were actually being sarcastic I must ask - have you watched the entire series? Hadfield explains countless times how CO2 or other greenhouse gases are just one factor in explaining why global temperatures change over time. In fact, if there's one thing that runs like a thread through the entire series it's this fact. So please watch the entire series and try to understand the term "positive feedback". This will give you a much clearer view of this issue.

[@Desertphile]

FlagshipMovement Er, I stated an observed fact, supported by all of the evidenced, agreed by all of the world's experts on the subject, and stated by Potholer54 in this video.

[@permahome]

Desertphile Ok sorry, I misunderstood your post as sarcasm. I thought you were saying that the scientists have simplified it and only blames CO2 for the warming while it's in fact a quite complicated process of many different factors that work together. But I agree that CO2 is the dominant force in the current warming trend.

[@Desertphile]

FlagshipMovement "I thought you were saying that the scientists have simplified it and only blames CO2 for the warming" That is correct: the world's scientists "blames" human-released greenhouse gases for almost 100% of the global average temperature increase. In fact they blame humans for 116% of the measured warming.

[@permahome]

Desertphile I'm going to need a bit of explanation for this. What do you mean "116% of the measured warming"?