Rise in CO2 has 'greened Planet Earth'

a reply to: Phage

So wait is it global warming or climate change and would increased co2 cause a warming effect or simply just a change?

It seems to me that if there's an increased chance for life to exist that it would also increase the chance for new life forms to manifest by proxy

Its a change in the variable table meaning different probable outcomes right

a reply to: Phage

And let me clarify by reiterating my point that the technology used to calculate these measurements has grown, and continues to evolve exponentially. Thus, it has to be taken into account when building a scientific model for our weather systems.

We can't even predict what the weather will do one week from now. And yet we so brazenly declare that flooding, hurricanes, tornadoes, unusually cold winters, etc. are all the result of man.

But since your question is as intelligent as an 8th graders:

www.arm.gov...

Q:
How does solar radiation affect weather?
Jared Peterson, Grade 8
Gig Harbor, Washington, USA

A:
Acted on by the combined effects of the earth's motions and energy from the sun, our planet's formless and invisible envelope of air reacts by producing an infinite variety of weather.

Although I'm not sure you'll trust anything that ends in .gov and I wouldn't blame you.

But how about something from Florida Atlantic University?

www.ces.fau.edu...

The angle of incoming solar radiation influences seasonal temperatures of locations at different latitudes. When the sun’s rays strike Earth’s surface near the equator, the incoming solar radiation is more direct (nearly perpendicular or closer to a 90˚ angle). Therefore, the solar radiation is concentrated over a smaller surface area, causing warmer temperatures. At higher latitudes, the angle of solar radiation is smaller, causing energy to be spread over a larger area of the surface and cooler temperatures. Because the angle of radiation varies depending on the latitude, surface temperatures on average are warmer at lower latitudes and cooler at higher latitudes (even though higher latitudes have more hours of daylight during the summer months).

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: onequestion
In some places, yes. In others, no. See, that's the difference between global warming and climate change. Global warming means the Earth's average temperature rises. Climate change means that, as a result, climates change.

Really?

Climate change, also called global warming, refers to the rise in average surface temperatures on Earth. An overwhelming scientific consensus maintains that climate change is due primarily to the human use of fossil fuels, which releases carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the air.

Global warming and climate change are terms for the observed century-scale rise in the average temperature of the Earth's climate system and its related effects. Multiple lines of scientific evidence show that the climate system is warming.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: ColdWisdom

I don't buy the global warming nonsense I think other things are going on.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

But since your question is as intelligent as an 8th graders:

No. Actually my question is a bit more sophisticated than that.
See, it is true that solar radiation provides the energy that drives weather and climate. It is also true that, with all other factors being equal, it would require a certain amount of increase in that radiation to account for the observed rise in temperatures.

My question was, again, has there been a sufficient rise in solar radiation to account for the observed rise in temperatures?

a reply to: onequestion

So wait is it global warming or climate change and would increased co2 cause a warming effect or simply just a change?

You don't read so good, do you? It is not either/or. They are two different, but related, things.

See, that's the difference between global warming and climate change. Global warming means the Earth's average temperature rises. Climate change means that, as a result, climates change.

a reply to: onequestion

Then we agree, sort of.

I mean the temperatures on our planet do increase from time to time. We know with certainty that it does so naturally. It has before we were here and it will continue to do so after we are gone.

Where is George Carlin when you need him?

a reply to: ColdWisdom

It has before we were here and it will continue to do so after we are gone.

Yes.
That doesn't mean that we are not having any effect though, does it?

Even the article quoted by the OP says that we are.

a reply to: Phage

Absolutely not. And please address the other points you dodged.

edit: And I never disputed that point, Phage. The question is how much do we contribute. And whatever the answer to that question is, how can we be sure?

a reply to: ColdWisdom

Sure.
Um.
Which points?
Chicken on the grill so I'm a bit distracted.

But a recent change in variables will produce a different set of outcomes meaning we should be seeing new life forms or lifeforms changing right

Or should I say adaptation

a reply to: onequestion

But a recent change in variables will produce a different set of outcomes meaning we should be seeing new life forms or lifeforms changing right

Or should I say adaptation

Well we have, actually. Polar bears are taking to hunting land animals more than before for example.
But if you mean new species, that takes a bit more that 75 years.

a reply to: Phage

Cooking the cock and contradicting yourself at the same time. You're very talented!

Kidding of course... I couldn't resist.

And truthfully I enjoy our bantering. Maybe some day we will have an intelligent conversation.

a reply to: Phage

It is also true that, with all other factors being equal, it would require a certain amount of increase in that radiation to account for the observed rise in temperatures.

Please explain the bolds.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

I used to have a planted Aquarium and used co2 in the water for the benefit of the plants,if there was too much Oxygen in the water by using an air pump it would dissolve the CO2 so I had to use a wavemaker which rotated the water to oygenate it but it was clear how much the plants needed the CO2.

Nobody can say for certain how the environment really works and most of these climate change pushers are being used to forward a social engineering program whereby we will be taxed to death in the name of carbon taxes by a Globalist corporate Government that will live in palaces and fly on private jets as the rest of us are forced off land so we cannot farm for ourselves and will be totally reliant on a totalitarian distopian tyranny.

The people behind the Global warming agenda are in it for insidious purposes.

a reply to: southbeach

Nobody can say for certain how the environment really works and most of these climate change pushers are being used to forward a social engineering program whereby we will be taxed to death in the name of carbon taxes by a Globalist corporate Government that will live in palaces and fly on private jets as the rest of us are forced off land so we cannot farm for ourselves and will be totally reliant on a totalitarian distopian tyranny.

The people behind the Global warming agenda are in it for insidious purposes.

Thank you!

a reply to: Phage

What about bacteria or phytoplankton

If the oceans are changing shouldn't we already have new forms of phytoplankton?

No?

If phytoplankton isn't adapting to the changes shouldn't we have less oxygen

a reply to: southbeach

Exactly what I'm trying to point out we should be seeing increased bio diversity and were not.

a reply to: Phage

a reply to: ColdWisdom

Cooking the cock and contradicting yourself at the same time.

What contradiction?

Please explain the bolds.

Sorry, seemed pretty obvious. If nothing but the energy output of the Sun changes, a given rise in global temperatures requires a given rise in energy output.