Quote:
Originally Posted by freeztar
...
As far as the thread title goes, we do have a valid basis to say that CO2 concentrations do affect climate and if we can lessen that single "part of the whole" then we can at least help slow/mitigate any additional heating caused by "other contributers".
We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know that humans have been emitting CO2 at increasing rates. We know that we are in a warming trend (for whatever reasons).
We can't influence solar activity or volcanoes (at least not with current tech). We can influence CO2 concentrations. ...
|
I want to touch on this before moving to some more heretical inconvenient truths. So Freezy, taking the above and making an anology with your work with runoff, soils, etcetera. Given that you know some particular piece of property is susceptable to 100 year floods, or some such other period, do you spend the owners money on efforts to keep the flooding from happening via weather control or other means, or do you spend the money on projects to control the consequences of these events?
Now to a logical error on the part of many of those 'damning' rebuttals on the influence of the Sun on global warming.
We start with the Sun, Earth, & Moon and all that gravitationaly driven water sloshing we call tides. There is at one level a relatively high frequency level, that of the daily double cycle of ebb & flow; a change every 6 hours. On top of that, the arrangement of all 3 bodies has a result of higher than normal and lower than normal when all three align, called sysygy. On top of that, the distance between Earth/Moon & Earth Sun varies with the eccentricity of orbit, so that when sysygy occurs during the closest approaches, the perigees, then the highs and lows are even more extreme.
Moving this principle then to the Sun cycles, both inter-solar-system and galactic, the same compounding of cycles make for some very long intervals of time to coincident peaks. Discounting a particular scientific study about an element of solar forcing related to a short cycle, is tantamount to discounting the possibility of a neap tide after 10 days of watching tides. Not good if you're a boater.
This is a real problem to the logic that says 'things' have never been this high/low before when in fact the highs and lows may simply have not occured often enough to even have meaning. You cannot say some flood is a 100 year flood until you get one. Moreover, the Sun observers
thought they knew the limits of Sun outbursts when they calibrated SOHO, and yet, last year a CME blew out that was off the scale they didn't think existed.
Anyway, that's another rap from mah shell.
