Yulegoat said:
First, I couldn't find the scientific articles that are the basis for that hand-drawn graph of Monte Hieb. Would you kindly tell what are the works that "C. R. Scotese" and "R.A. Berner, 2001" refer to? Here's a bit more up-to-date graph of the temperature:
Second, no-one has stated that CO2 is the only factor behind climate changes. In long time spans, the Milankovich cycle, for example, is much more important. I was hoping to get some conversation about the satellite measurements of the fortification of greenhouse effect or about the measurements of CO2's infrared radiation absorbing qualities, but I guess that won't happen. After all, it's pretty hard to argue against physical observations. Have you ever read and understood scientific studies about these issues? |
Robert A. Berner is a professor at Yale university. Here's some info. http://science.enotes.com/earth-science/berner-robert
Also check out this article he wrote:http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/CrowleyBernerScience01.pdf
The actual CO2 data used for the graph comes from the following article: 'Berner, R.A. and Kothavala, Z., 2001, GEOCARB III: A revised model of atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic time' (which I do not have a direct link to)
Christopher R Scotese is a professor at the University of Texas Arlington http://www.uta.edu/ees/Geohomepage/Faculty%20Pages/scotese98.htm
This page: http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm actually contains the temperature graph that the above graph was created from.
This isn't a hand drawn or made up graph like you were saying. There's no need to insult people just because you disagree with them.
Monte Hieb's website essay was just a place where many of the other articles and data I've seen have been put into one place, that's why I chose it.
And I'm not suggesting that anyone is saying that CO2 is the only thing effecting the climate. I'm just saying there's too much emphasis on CO2- emphasis is the word I have used every time. Climate change is nothing new or out of the ordinary. As far as we can tell, the earth has been in a constant state of climate change since it was formed, and I don't think anything we do can stop it. BUT I'M NOT SAYING WE SHOULDN'T DO ANYTHING TO REDUCE EMISSIONS, JUST THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO BE IN A STATE OF PANIC ABOUT IT. We can make changes in more gradual ways that don't harm or destroy economies.
And yulegoat... 'Have you ever read and understood scientific studies about these issues?' is a pretty insulting way to debate. Let's not insult each other's intelligence. I see from this thread that you are a very intelligent person... so am I. We just have different opinions on this particular subject. I have no doubt that you have read at least as much as I have about this subject, you've just come to a different conclusion than I have, and I respect, but disagree with your opinions. So let's keep it civil.
