http://imagedough.com/ id/ 999/ 049/ 987/ 367/ 57/ thumb/ 2012-doomsday.png

On December 21, 2012 four strangers on a journey of faith are drawn to an ancient temple in the heart of Mexico. For the Mayans it is the last recorded day. For NASA scientists it is a cataclysmic polar shift. For the rest of us, it is Doomsday.

Download

Upload your file and share

Pre-industrial era, CO_2 has been considered as ~280 ppm. Current value is ~387 ppm.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas.
Some projections are for CO_2 to rise to ~540-970 ppm by 2100 (90 yrs away). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming. Upper range of 970 ppm would represent
2.5 x current value. Would this represent an accelerating curve?
Are we increasingly accelerating through a transition zone,effectively in reverse, from ‘Oligocene to Eocene’ ? The Eocene to Oligocene transition 35 million years ago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene
has been estimated to occur at ~750 ppm of CO_2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene. http://www.nature.com/ nature/ journal/ vaop/ ncurrent/ abs/ nature08447.html. Paleocene-Eocene was a greenhouse time of probably essentially no ice on the planet. http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum. For subsequent Oligocene one has cooling and onset of glaciation. If indeed the current upper limit projections of 970 ppm is reasonable, might one have commencement of melting of East Antarctica in 100’s of years, rather than thousands of years? With perhaps a lower limit of 100+ yrs before any significant melting
of East Antarctica?

Total surface area of ice in all of Antarctica (east and west) is ~ 13,720,000 km^2, with average thickness of 1.6 km.; giving ice volume of 21,952,000 km^3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarctica.
Ocean surface area is 361,132,000 km^2 (70.8% of planet surface area). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceans.
Volume_ice /S.A._ocean = h ; ~ 22 M km^3 /~361 M km^2 = .06 km. Thus for total melting of Antarctica, and even distribution over all oceans, one would have increased sea level rise of .06 km.1 meter is 3.28 ft.1000 m.=3280 ft. So .06 x 3280= 199 ft sea level rise. But if West Antarctica’s earlier contribution is ~11 ft (3-4 m.), then sea level rise from later process of East Antarctica complete melting, would be ~ 188 ft or 57 meters. 100 meters equaling 328 ft. Would prudence suggest entertaining and planning for a worse case scenario?

Paul N. Pearson, Gavin L. Foster, & Bridget S. Wade
Nature 13 September 2009
Atmospheric carbon dioxide through the Eocene-Oligocene climate transition

Lomborg is not a “denier”, nor is he a “delayer”. He makes some very interestig arguments about prioritizing how we approach a problem that effects the entire world. Are we better off spending enormous funds on one problem while we ignore less costly solutions for problems that global warming will cause?

Why do nations not join together to ban the production of CFCs? Approximately 60 million pounds of CFCs find their way into the market each year – $1.5 billion dollars worth of the stuff. It will not be banned in third world countries until 2010. CFCs eat away at the ozone layer and will be around well after we are all gone. Could those who decry global warming not do something about this specific danger?

Give everyone their fair due. Do not simply label someone negatively because they have a different point of view. Where would we be as a people if we regarded all science in that manner?

It is a fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that, everything else equal, increases the temperature of the planet as it increases in the atmosphere. There is no question about it.

There is a question about the relationship between global temperature and CO2 when everything else is not equal (absorption by the ocean, etc).

So at minimum Ron can admit that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

It appears that the assertion that CO2 causes global warming and climate change is a hypothesis; not even a full-fledged theory.

The only way to test such a hypothesis is through models, obviously, but even you will admit that the models do a poor job of actually predicting what goes on with climate.

Therefore, it’s still in the hypothesis stage and hasn’t graduated to a theory.

I know you take this as underestimation of the problem, and proof of the theory, but this is erroneous. That is your opinion, and you could be right, but it’s not based on the science.

The models don’t work well because one or more assumptions in the hypothesis are incorrect. And it could turn out that the assumption about CO2 is incorrect.

But, like I said, it does not look like a solid theory at any rate.

I guess that’s pretty much what I thought.

Would either of you have links to any articles that explain or establish the science behind the theory of rising carbon dioxide levels causing global warming?

Consider me more of a ‘doubter’ than a “denyer”. As long as you don’t push propaganda and disinformation at me, I’d be willing to learn.

Speaking of which: I enjoyed your comments at the beginning of this thread, Shannon. You said something about ‘our side would never make unqualified claims’. Does this mean that you guys have abandoned Al Gore and some of his unsupportable warnings? Is he no longer on your side?

If so, kudos to you. People may begin to take you more seriously. Look at me – I’m willing to consider the idea that CO2 can cause climate change. Just please show me the science; cause and effect, you know.