09-26-2019, 11:03 AM
(09-26-2019, 10:20 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: So you are arguing that CO2 was "weak" in the past 3 decades, but will be "worse" in the next 3 decades. I guess you think the laws of physics are changing?
Come on Warren. You have a science background, so this isn't that hard. There are many strong drivers of global temperature, including the 11-year solar cycle and the much longer galactic cycle. Most are just that: cyclic. Concentrations of greenhouse gases, on the other hand, are driven by other events like volcanic activity and carbon sequestration. Volcanic activity has driven the climate to the limit many times in the past and the effect can be both acute and dramatic. Carbon sequestration, or its opposite: burning fossil fuels, is slower. The effects build up or down over centuries or millennia.
The use of fossil fuels started in earnest with the industrial revolution. Because the release of the sequestered carbon adds CO2 over time as fossil fuels are burned, the impact finally rises high enough to be noticed in the mix of other drivers. But because it's a linear function, and the concentration continues to rise, the effect eventually begins to dominate … and that's where we are now.
In short, what's more worrisome: A sin(B), where A is large, or Cy, where C is small, but y rises steadily over time? If there is no functionally upper limit to y, Cy can go off the charts.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
