Global Warming...Fact or Fiction? - Page 15

7thsfsniper · 05-09-2008, 18:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brokensickle

Me stoke up the fire...Get hot... Me let fire burn down...Get cold...HMMM...Me get close to fire...Get hot...Me get away from fire...Get cool...HMMMM...so smoke cause fire to get hot? "Time to go to bed Al"....I be there in minute Tipper, I discovered that smoke cause heat.

ROTFL

Helium · 05-10-2008, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Here are a few facts: Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth's average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit. Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun's output. On top of that, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.

This is an article from an economist lol, please and nowhere does it mention that carbon has an insignificant effect on the atmosphere. You have used this article to try and make an argument that water vapour is a more serious green house gas than carbon, thus in doing so trying to make a point that carbon is "ïnsignificant" because its introduction into the atmosphere is far less than water vapour.

Quote:

Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere.

Are you f****** serious, this is a statement by an economist and he does not provide any source for this...."fact". This is a perfect example of utilizing statistics to fit your own argument, he does not state whether 95% of human introduced water vapour/anthropogenic or if this is the natural green house effect. I assume he is talking about the natural effect judging by that percentage, which is therefore irrelevant because human induced global warming is the alteration of the chemical composition of the atm...ere through introduction of more or less of green house gases.

If he means that the organic water vapour, then I agree that this can be true (95% I think not but I would believe a figure over 50%) but it is irrelevent because we know that the naturally occuring green house gases are what has created the oxic and temperate climate necessary for life so the effect of this non-human introduced vapour is essential for maintaining the current natural climate.

Heres good ol' Wallys credentials

Quote:

Walter E. Williams
Born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Dr. Walter E. Williams holds a B.A. in economics from California State University, Los Angeles, and M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in economics from UCLA. He also holds a Doctor of Humane Letters from Virginia Union University and Grove City College, Doctor of Laws from Washington and Jefferson College and Doctor Honoris Causa en Ciencias Sociales from Universidad Francisco Marroquin, in Guatemala, where he is also Professor Honorario.

Dr. Williams has served on the faculty of George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics, since 1980; from 1995 to 2001, he served as department chairman. He has also served on the faculties of Los Angeles City College, California State University Los Angeles, and Temple University in Philadelphia, and Grove City College, Grove City, Pa.

Not really qualified to be used to support that carbon is insignificant as a gree house gas, especially when he doesn't even mention carbon.

Quote:

On top of that, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.

Again irrelevant, the green house gases emitted by wetlands are what maintains the natural levels of chemical composition of the atm...ere to create the required oxic and temperature conditions necessary for life. Again what matter is what chemicals/molecules r added/introduced unnaturally by humans that alter the chemical composition thus the oxic and temperature of at...ere.

You have yet to provide evidence that CO2 emissions and its effects are irrelevant.

**Parihaka** · 05-10-2008, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helium

You have yet to provide evidence that CO2 emissions and its effects are irrelevant.

You have yet to provide evidence that CO2 emissions and its effects are relevant

**Parihaka** · 05-10-2008, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helium

Are you f****** serious, this is a statement by an economist and he does not provide any source for this...."fact".

Hansen, Schmidt et al, aka RealClimate aka George Soros put the figure at

Quote:

In terms of mass, water vapour is much more prevalent (about 0.3% of atmospheric mass, compared to about 0.06% for CO2), and so is ~80% of all greenhouse gases by mass (~90% by volume).

Personally I'd say 95% was closer, so I'd guess yes, he is F****** serious, far more so than you with your 50%. Got a source for that figure?

Helium · 05-10-2008, 08:26 AM

My evidence that CO2 emmissions and its effect are relevant is shown through the scientifically proven concept of 'Green House gases' GHE (green house effect)

I have said this numerous times. In the GHE, naturally occuring substances in the atmosphere absorb light and retain heat, this is an essential occurance to sustain life and the specific chemical composition of these substances creates the delecate balance of temperature and oxygen to sustain life. MORE carbon is introduced to the atmosphere through human activities, adding to the already existing carbon which alters the chemical composition thus temperature and oxygen. Water vapour is recognised by me and scientifically as a green house gas although the amounts introduced by humans is significantly smaller than carbon. So I am not disputing the heat absorption capability of water vapour, which is significantly greater than carbon, but that water vapour levels are remaining relatively constant whilst carbon levels are significantly increasing.

Helium · 05-10-2008, 08:44 AM

A nice piece of evidence to support both the heat absorbing capabilities of carbon and water vapour. I know, I know, the scientist must be a liberal, the scientific organisation is corrupt and politically bias but take off your tin foil hats for a sec and read the thing. Its long I know but good

Quote:

Quantum mechanics provides the basis for computing the interactions between molecules and radiation. Most of this interaction occurs when the frequency of the radiation closely matches that of the spectral lines of the molecule, determined by the quantization of the modes of vibration and rotation of the molecule. (The electronic excitations are generally not relevant for infrared radiation, as they require energy larger than that in an infrared photon.)

The width of a spectral line is an important element in understanding its importance for the absorption of radiation. In the Earth’s atmosphere these spectral widths are primarily determined by “pressure broadening”, which is the distortion of the spectrum due to the collision with another molecule. Most of the infrared absorption in the atmosphere can be thought of as occurring while two molecules are colliding. The absorption due to a photon interacting with a lone molecule is relatively small. This three-body aspect of the problem, one photon and two molecules, makes direct quantum mechanical computation for molecules of interest more challenging. Careful laboratory spectroscopic measurements, rather than ab initio quantum mechanical computations, provide the basis for most of the radiative transfer calculations used in studies of the atmosphere.

The molecules/atoms that constitute the bulk of the atmosphere: oxygen (O2), nitrogen (N2) and argon (Ar); do not interact with infrared radiation significantly. While the oxygen and nitrogen molecules can vibrate, because of their symmetry these vibrations do not create any transient charge separation. Without such a transient dipole moment, they can neither absorb nor emit infrared radiation. In the Earth’s atmosphere, the dominant infrared absorbing gases are water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone (O3). The same molecules are also the dominant infrared emitting molecules. CO2 and O3 have "floppy" vibration motions whose quantum states can be excited by collisions at energies encountered in the atmosphere. For example, carbon dioxide is a linear molecule, but it has an important vibrational mode in which the molecule bends with the carbon in the middle moving one way and the oxygens on the ends moving the other way, creating some charge separation, a dipole moment, thus carbon dioxide molecules can absorb IR radiation. Collisions will immediately transfer this energy to heating the surrounding gas. On the other hand, other CO2 molecules will be vibrationally excited by collisions. Roughly 5% of CO2 molecules are vibrationally excited at room temperature and it is this 5% that radiates. A substantial part of the greenhouse effect due to carbon dioxide exists because this vibration is easily excited by infrared radiation. CO2 has two other vibrational modes. The symmetric stretch does not radiate, and the asymmetric stretch is at too high a frequency to be effectively excited by atmospheric temperature collisions, although it does contribute to absorption of IR radiation. The vibrational modes of water are at too high energies to effectively radiate, but do absorb higher frequency IR radiation. Water vapor has a bent shape. It has a permanent dipole moment (the O atom end is electron rich, and the H atoms electron poor) which means that IR light can be emitted and absorbed during rotational transitions, and these transitions can also be produced by collisional energy transfer. Clouds are also very important infrared absorbers. Therefore, water has multiple effects on infrared radiation, through its vapor phase and through its condensed phases. Other absorbers of significance include methane, nitrous oxide and the chlorofluorocarbons.

Discussion of the relative importance of different infrared absorbers is confused by the overlap between the spectral lines due to different gases, widened by pressure broadening. As a result, the absorption due to one gas cannot be thought of as independent of the presence of other gases. One convenient approach is to remove the chosen constituent, leaving all other absorbers, and the temperatures, untouched, and monitoring the infrared radiation escaping to space. The reduction in infrared absorption is then a measure of the importance of that constituent. More precisely, define the greenhouse effect (GE) to be the difference between the infrared radiation that the surface would radiate to space if there were no atmosphere and the actual infrared radiation escaping to space. Then compute the percentage reduction in GE when a constituent is removed. The table below is computed by this method, using a particular 1-dimensional model of the atmosphere. More recent 3D computations lead to similar results.

Gas removed percent reduction in GE
H2O 36%
CO2 9%
O3 3%

(Source: GISS-GCM ModelE simulation)

By this particular measure, water vapor can be thought of as providing 36% of the greenhouse effect, and carbon dioxide 9%, but the effect of removal of both of these constituents will be greater than the total that each reduces the effect, in this case more than 45%. An additional proviso is that these numbers are computed holding the cloud distribution fixed. But removing water vapor from the atmosphere while holding clouds fixed is not likely to be physically relevant. In addition, the effects of a given gas are typically nonlinear in the amount of that gas, since the absorption by the gas at one level in the atmosphere can remove photons that would otherwise interact with the gas at another altitude. The kinds of estimates presented in the table, while often encountered in the controversies surrounding global warming, must be treated with caution. Different estimates found in different sources typically result from different definitions and do not reflect uncertainties in the underlying radiative transfer.

So if it is scientifically proven that carbon can retain/absorb heat why is it not able to increase the temperature of the atmosphere if there is more of it introduced by human activities.

This is an excellent source because it is very balanced, especially the end where it takes into consideration the disrepencies of estimates where it states is due to different definitions, maybe not liberal, corupt organisations huh?

Also it mentions alot to do with water vapour which is the best heat absorber/retainer but remember its the tonnes of carbon we emit aswell as a smaller number of water vapour.

The science is there, the emerging effects are there (ice caps) and my cart and horse are there

lol.

The only things missing are dalem, Gunnut, Parihaka and 7thsfsniper.

Oh well, wave hello everyone

**Parihaka** · 05-10-2008, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helium

A nice piece of evidence to support both the heat absorbing capabilities of carbon and water vapour. I know, I know, the scientist must be a liberal, the scientific organisation is corrupt and politically bias but take off your tin foil hats for a sec and read the thing. Its long I know but good

So if it is scientifically proven that carbon can retain/absorb heat why is it not able to increase the temperature of the atmosphere if there is more of it introduced by human activities.

It may possibly do so, but you have yet to offer one shred of evidence that it has. As an aside, please stop the ad hominems which are against forum rules.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helium

This is an excellent source because it is very balanced, especially the end where it takes into consideration the disrepencies of estimates where it states is due to different definitions, maybe not liberal, corupt organisations huh?

Also it mentions alot to do with water vapour which is the best heat absorber/retainer but remember its the tonnes of carbon we emit aswell as a smaller number of water vapour.

The science is there, the emerging effects are there (ice caps) and my cart and horse are there

lol.

Really?

Quote:

Abstract

We explore the daily evolution of tropical intraseasonal oscillations in satellite-observed tropospheric temperature, precipitation, radiative fluxes, and cloud properties. The warm/rainy phase of a composited average of fifteen oscillations is accompanied by a net reduction in radiative input into the ocean-atmosphere system, with longwave heating anomalies transitioning to longwave cooling during the rainy phase. The increase in longwave cooling is traced to decreasing coverage by ice clouds, potentially supporting Lindzen's “infrared iris” hypothesis of climate stabilization. These observations should be considered in the testing of cloud parameterizations in climate models, which remain sources of substantial uncertainty in global warming prediction.

Quote:

ABSTRACT: We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model
simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era).
Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by
more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than
observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with
those of recent publications based on essentially the same data. Copyright  2007 Royal Meteorological Society

Quote:

Abstract

We compare new observationally-based data sets of Antarctic near-surface air temperature and snowfall accumulation with 20th century simulations from global climate models (GCMs) that support the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report. Annual Antarctic snowfall accumulation trends in the GCMs agree with observations during 1960–1999, and the sensitivity of snowfall accumulation to near-surface air temperature fluctuations is approximately the same as observed, about 5% K−1. Thus if Antarctic temperatures rise as projected, snowfall increases may partially offset ice sheet mass loss by mitigating an additional 1 mm y−1 of global sea level rise by 2100. However, 20th century (1880–1999) annual Antarctic near-surface air temperature trends in the GCMs are about 2.5-to-5 times larger-than-observed, possibly due to the radiative impact of unrealistic increases in water vapor. Resolving the relative contributions of dynamic and radiative forcing on Antarctic temperature variability in GCMs will lead to more robust 21st century projections.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helium

The only things missing are dalem, Gunnut, Parihaka and 7thsfsniper.

Oh well, wave hello everyone

The other things missing are:
The Antarctic isn't melting, it's growing which puts the lie to your above comment.
The recent Arctic melting according to NASA is due to a change in ocean currents.
The oceans are currently cooling, as is the lower atmosphere since 1998. The troposphere of course never heated up in the first place.

So, despite the ever-increasing global anthropogenic co2 output, your predictions that the globe will heat up simply aren't coming true.
So the other things missing from your horse and cart are real-world observations and actual accurate scientific predictions. But good luck on your trip, we will indeed wave goodbye.

dalem · 05-10-2008, 14:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helium

The only things missing are dalem, Gunnut, Parihaka and 7thsfsniper.

Oh well, wave hello everyone

Hello.

Model, model, who's got the model?

Your article above isn't proof or evidence of anything, it's merely another prediction.

-dale

7thsfsniper · 05-10-2008, 14:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalem

Hello.

Model, model, who's got the model?

Your article above isn't proof or evidence of anything, it's merely another prediction.

-dale

The science is there, the emerging effects are there (ice caps) and my cart and horse are there lol.

The only things missing are dalem, Gunnut, Parihaka and 7thsfsniper.

Oh well, wave hello everyone

And none of these mention a damn thing about cowfarts! I read once where that and cow belches produce enough methane to melt greenland!

Helium · 05-10-2008, 20:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parihaka

As an aside, please stop the ad hominems which are against forum rules.

Sorry, it was all with good intentions and humour but I wont do it any more. You guys can knock me if you want, I am writting this thread out of a cave in Mt Kosiosko where I am gonna b safe from the heat and wont be inundated by water in a few years. And tin foil hats are so bad for the environment, u use em once then you throw it out, I suggest some recyclable materials like my clothes which are made out of hemp.

You guys all act like your unphased by my Ground Breaking piece of evidence on carbon absorption. But i bet after you guys spent a couple of hours bawling your eyes out coz my quote was full proof Parihaka went out and bought a prius, Gunnut makes his own environmentally friendly shampoo and 7thsfsniper has gone so far as to recycle toilet paper.

**Officer of Engineers** · 05-11-2008, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helium

A nice piece of evidence to support both the heat absorbing capabilities of carbon and water vapour. I know, I know, the scientist must be a liberal, the scientific organisation is corrupt and politically bias but take off your tin foil hats for a sec and read the thing. Its long I know but good

Again, explain World Wars I and II.

In fact, I will even go further. Explain Stalingrad .. with the heaviest concentration of firepower (and therefore CO2 and man made heat) and it still was one of the coldest winters in history. An extremely localized event (the CO2 pretty well stayed there) with both summer AND localized man made heat source DID NOT change the weather, let alone the climate.

7thsfsniper · 05-11-2008, 02:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helium

.........and 7thsfsniper has gone so far as to recycle toilet paper.

The only thing I recycle is spent cartridges

dalem · 05-11-2008, 03:11 AM

You want to affect global temps, talk to a volcano.

-dale

**Ironduke** · 05-11-2008, 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Again, explain World Wars I and II.

In fact, I will even go further. Explain Stalingrad .. with the heaviest concentration of firepower (and therefore CO2 and man made heat) and it still was one of the coldest winters in history. An extremely localized event (the CO2 pretty well stayed there) with both summer AND localized man made heat source DID NOT change the weather, let alone the climate.

I'm going to hazard a guess, I'd think that like a volcano, the world wars threw a huge amount of dust into the air, which can explain part of it. Volcanic eruptions release massive amounts of CO2, but they cause a drop in global temperatures because of the dust. 1942, like 2008, was also a year of minimum sunspot and solar flare activity (solar minimum).

dalem · 05-11-2008, 05:45 AM

Somewhere buried in the myriad of threads we have here concerning climate there is a post by me showing numbers for the particulates raised by a full WWIII nuclear exchange and the particulates ejected by major volcanoes like Mt. St. Helens and Tambora.

The volcanoes far outstrip the nukes.

Don't sweat the tailpipes, ladies and germs, sweat the exploding mountains. And the Sun.

-dale

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Tibet: A lost hope or a bright tomorrow	OnlinePhuntsho	Political Discussions	195	04-18-2008 09:17 AM
For Those Who Fear Global Warming, Please Read...	brokensickle	Science & Tech	60	03-17-2008 18:21 PM
Nuclear War Plan : the nuclear option in Global Strike

05-10-2008, 08:26 AM	#215 (permalink)
Helium Regular Join Date: 04-02-08 Posts: 69	My evidence that CO2 emmissions and its effect are relevant is shown through the scientifically proven concept of 'Green House gases' GHE (green house effect) I have said this numerous times. In the GHE, naturally occuring substances in the atmosphere absorb light and retain heat, this is an essential occurance to sustain life and the specific chemical composition of these substances creates the delecate balance of temperature and oxygen to sustain life. MORE carbon is introduced to the atmosphere through human activities, adding to the already existing carbon which alters the chemical composition thus temperature and oxygen. Water vapour is recognised by me and scientifically as a green house gas although the amounts introduced by humans is significantly smaller than carbon. So I am not disputing the heat absorption capability of water vapour, which is significantly greater than carbon, but that water vapour levels are remaining relatively constant whilst carbon levels are significantly increasing.

05-11-2008, 03:11 AM	#223 (permalink)
dalem Lord High Hullabalooster *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 11-23-04 Location: Columbia Heights, MN Posts: 8,325 Country:	You want to affect global temps, talk to a volcano. -dale

05-11-2008, 05:45 AM	#225 (permalink)
dalem Lord High Hullabalooster *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 11-23-04 Location: Columbia Heights, MN Posts: 8,325 Country:	Somewhere buried in the myriad of threads we have here concerning climate there is a post by me showing numbers for the particulates raised by a full WWIII nuclear exchange and the particulates ejected by major volcanoes like Mt. St. Helens and Tambora. The volcanoes far outstrip the nukes. Don't sweat the tailpipes, ladies and germs, sweat the exploding mountains. And the Sun. -dale

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)