I don't expect anything from you, but sticking to the facts would be useful rather than making irrelevant statements.
Global warming periods have always preceded glacial periods for the last several hundred thousand years. It can be seen that each glacial-interglacial period is unique. How is current period going to play out?
One scenario can be what Ewing-Donn hypothesize about increase of snow precipitation on Northern hemisphere from North wind pickup of higher water vapor content due to reduced ice cover of the Arctic Ocean. Once Arctic ice cover is sufficiently gone (15-30-50 years?), Northern hemisphere glaciation is imminent, global sea level will decrease while current dessert and arid areas will enjoy higher rainfall turning some to become arable once more for several thousand years.
Is it wise for us to focus only at atmospheric CO2 content?
One scenario can be what Ewing-Donn hypothesize about increase of snow precipitation on Northern hemisphere from North wind pickup of higher water vapor content due to reduced ice cover of the Arctic Ocean. Once Arctic ice cover is sufficiently gone (15-30-50 years?), Northern hemisphere glaciation is imminent, global sea level will decrease while current dessert and arid areas will enjoy higher rainfall turning some to become arable once more for several thousand years.
Is it wise for us to focus only at atmospheric CO2 content?
Attachments
We either steer clear of the politics or we will be typing in another thread as this one will be closed.
Do not cross that line.
"Snowball Earth" posits that the earth was entirely covered in ice between 630 and 700 million years ago, that escaping methyl hydrates added a blanket which allowed the earth to warm.
Interesting -- in a period of glaciation, water vapor, the most important green-house gas, is essentially sequestered in ice.
NASA GISS: Research Features: "Snowball Earth" Might Have Been Slushy
Copy paste about water vapour:
"Water vapour is not considered to be a cause of man-made global warming because it does not persist in the atmosphere for more than a few days."
"There are other greenhouse gases which have far greater global warming potential (GWP) but are much less prevalent. These are sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and perfluorocarbons (PFCs)."
"There are a wide variety of uses for SF6, HFCs, and PFCs but they have been most commonly used as refrigerants and for fire suppression. Many of these compounds also have a depleting effect on ozone in the upper atmosphere."
"For example, sulphur hexafluoride is used to fill tennis balls. The table shows that a release on 1 kg of this gas is equivalent to 22,800 kg or 22.8 tonnes of CO2. Therefore, releasing ONE KILOGRAM of sulphur hexafluoride is about equivalent to driving 5 cars for a year! (2)"
CO2 equivalents |
Do look it up, and if you want to deny the chart, please use facts. I've seen the same data from a number of other sources. The table also says something about HOW the various gases are influencing the climate over a 100 year period.
"Water vapour is not considered to be a cause of man-made global warming because it does not persist in the atmosphere for more than a few days."
"There are other greenhouse gases which have far greater global warming potential (GWP) but are much less prevalent. These are sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and perfluorocarbons (PFCs)."
"There are a wide variety of uses for SF6, HFCs, and PFCs but they have been most commonly used as refrigerants and for fire suppression. Many of these compounds also have a depleting effect on ozone in the upper atmosphere."
"For example, sulphur hexafluoride is used to fill tennis balls. The table shows that a release on 1 kg of this gas is equivalent to 22,800 kg or 22.8 tonnes of CO2. Therefore, releasing ONE KILOGRAM of sulphur hexafluoride is about equivalent to driving 5 cars for a year! (2)"
CO2 equivalents |
Do look it up, and if you want to deny the chart, please use facts. I've seen the same data from a number of other sources. The table also says something about HOW the various gases are influencing the climate over a 100 year period.
What about changing your avatar name to Oddharmonics, it corresponds better to the flow of your debate ?
American Chemical Society (former member here)
It's Water Vapor, Not the CO2 - American Chemical Society
I'll just borrow your post and change the wording from "groove" to "dubious source".
That is actually true, the co2 is bound up in some clouds and the water "droplets" are much smaller in those clouds, making it less possible to cause rain. So the co2 rich clouds are stable for much longer than the "natural" clouds. There is bacteria living in those natural clouds that influence downpour.
"Natural" clouds rain more frequently, but "dead" clouds with a lot of co2 stay in the atmosphere for a very prolonged duration.
Earth's Clouds Alive With Bacteria
Bacteria in the atmosphere cause rain | ScienceNordic
I saw a long documentary on this a few years ago, where some scientists used a zeppelin filled with various spectrometers and other analyzing equipment to measure cloud formations and what they contained. Think they where from the UK, having some trouble finding it because I do not remember the exact name of the experiments.
Edit:
Think I found it, Cloud Lab from BBC
BBC Two - Operation Cloud Lab: Secrets of the Skies, Episode 1
"Natural" clouds rain more frequently, but "dead" clouds with a lot of co2 stay in the atmosphere for a very prolonged duration.
Earth's Clouds Alive With Bacteria
Bacteria in the atmosphere cause rain | ScienceNordic
I saw a long documentary on this a few years ago, where some scientists used a zeppelin filled with various spectrometers and other analyzing equipment to measure cloud formations and what they contained. Think they where from the UK, having some trouble finding it because I do not remember the exact name of the experiments.
Edit:
Think I found it, Cloud Lab from BBC
BBC Two - Operation Cloud Lab: Secrets of the Skies, Episode 1
Last edited:
To save others the time, the first link is a copy-paste of Cook's resume from his own site (which unsurprisingly, contains no damning information) and the second is a half-hour lecture from history student, MRA and alt-right Youtuber Stefan Molyneaux, who has no climate science credentials whatsoever.
I don't see how either of those can be seen to impugn Cook's credibility.
Interesting. So, John Cook, who has no climate science credentials whatsoever has credibility as a default on global warming info?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.