7thsfsniper

Maybe I should email Al Gore and invite him for an explanation?

__________________
The nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten

dark-alias

That is a great idea!

dalem

Incorrect.

-dale

Helium

The site how stuff works has a very good pic showing how the heat is absorbed.
Howstuffworks "The Greenhouse Effect"

hope this helps.... and welcome believer

Parihaka

Right, not exactly your own words: but now how much of that CO2 is anthropogenic in origin, and what is it's percentage in the total volume of 'greenhouse' gases?

__________________
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

Shek

CO2 causes 9-26%. That's some pretty exact science.

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

ba1025

I didn't start this thread so I am not 'peddling' anything. Some horsehit was being peddled to me and I responded. just because you dont like some facts doesnt mean they arent facts.
You do realize that outside of this board and a few nutjobs on talk radio and some shills for industries that might have a lower profit margin if global warming is addressed...you are alone in calling it "belief"

It's a fact. If you substitute say flouro carbons into the equation you all sound like the far right in 1978...OMG McDs wont taste good w/o styrofoam

If you put acid rain in you sound like the far right in 1985...OMG INDUSTRY WILL GO BROKE AND CANT COMPETE...there are fish back in lakes because it got dealt with and no one went broke

If you put the clean air act, epa, or clean water act into the equation you all sound like the far right in 1968....OMG IF WE CANT SPEW POISON INTO THE AIR AND WATER INDUSTRY WILL GO BROKE

Your swimming pool could be boiling away and you'd be pointing to some nutjob on faux news saying the earth wasn't warming. There really isn't a point in me participating in these boards. I leave with respect for one participant I disagreed with. I am only grateful even the leadership in the republican party couldnt deny the FACT OF GLOBAL WARMING any longer and we will finally start seeing some action even if ol John ( Keating 5) McCain is elected. Only George(**** the constitution I dont need fisa to spy on americans) W( **** the army field manual torture first convict later) Bush ( Mission disassembled) can save us all.

Parihaka

Stop trolling.. You want to discuss the science do so: you want to flame everyone with strawmen piss off somewhere else and do it.

Helium

I thought using the actual words of a credited paper is better than what some people may counter is my own opinion if it was in my own words.

Forgive my ignorance but I assume when you say "änthropogenic" you mean naturally occuring in the atmosphere (I cant b bothered looking up the meaning sry lol ).

If so, yes the quote expalins the chemical composition of the atmosphere of the naturally occuring substances and their amt in the atmosphere to create a mean warming temp of around 33 degrees.

So yes carbon is an essential part of the atmosphere in order to maintain life on earth through creating a habitat that supports life. We through using energy producing fuels that are high in carbon are adding more carbon to the atmpsphere - CHANGING THE CHEMICAL/GAS COMPOSITION OF THE ATMOSPHERE.

I find it so weird that people believe that CFC's can alter the chemical composition of the atmosphere and let in UV rays causing cancer but do not believe that our energy producing methods can also alter the chemical composition of atmoshpere and affects us again? Do those who do not believe in Global Warming also not believe in the effect of CFC's on the atmosphere?

I think that where people find Global warming hard to believe is that our practices are going to destroy human life/all life and that planet. ie that this one seemingly small event (in comparision to the planet as a whole) will trigger the demise, through a chain reaction, of all of earth.

But I say to those people, do you believe in the principles of how an atomic bomb works? Two tiny atoms are hurled together at great speeds and causes them to destroy each other and in doing so create a huge amount of energy. The broken pieces of atoms hit surounding atoms causing a chain reaction of a huge release of energy AND it is this chain event that createss enough devastation to destroy a whole city. But when you look back, the initial 2 atoms colliding releases a huge amount of energy relative to its scale but in reality the energy released is less than required to turn on a light bulb - its is the cumulative effect or Chain reaction that creates the immence devestation - just like global warming.

just like plutonium is a highly unstable and fragile substance, so to is the chemical composition of the atmosphere

svguy

Volume is a red herring; the key is a combination of the (for lack of better term) "heat content" of what is there coupled with its longevity.

By "heat content", that is a function of the wavelengths that it absorbs and the % of longwave radiation from the ground that it "catches"; and the resulting reemission.

C02 is a fairly efficient heat catcher at the re-emitted longwave radiation spectra. C02 is now currently at around 390 ppmv (maybe a bit less) or about .03% of the atmosphere. Is that the small number you were looking for? If so, its a red herring per the discussion above.

============

The level has risen from about 315 ppmv since 1960.

As per the amount due to anthropogenic sources, C14:C12 ratios, C13:C12 ratios, and C12:C14 ratios can be directly measured. Since anthropogenic carbon is from "isolated" carbon (i.e. locked away for 10s of millions of years, or more), its ratio profile is very different than that in the "short term" carbon cycle loop. These direct measurements have pointed a strong finger at the vast majority of the increase in C02 from the late 1950's as being "anthropogenic" in nature.

I do hope you are not going down the "its only .03% of the atmosphere" argument. By itself that number is completely useless. And, I do hope you are not going down the "we don't know where its coming from" argument, since the hard science pretty much tells us that.

tankie

Invites for single malts are comin your way Troung

__________________
TANKIE , WITHOUT WAX

Parihaka

No sorry, anthropogenic means man made, hence anthro. Not looking to put you down, just being precise.

Parihaka

No actually it's about .28% of total greenhouse (anthro & natural) gases, not .3 of total atmosphere.
It's (anthropogenic co2) contribution to the greenhouse effect is about .117%

dalem

The above is an unoriginal liberal, anti-Republican, anti-Bush rant. It's not rational, fact-based, or useful.

It's not even entertaining.

-dale

svguy

I think your math is off.

Tomayto, tomahto... Your "by volume" theory really has no point, whether you cite "total" GHG or or "total" gases overall. The point is the total thermal signature of the uptick, and the genesis of the uptick.

C02 by itself contributes somewhere between 9-25-ish% of the greenhouse effect. (Per your cohort Shek, and many other public sources)

Current levels of CO2 are at 384 ppm, or .0384%; up about 100 ppm from the late 50's - early 60's. (both facts well documented)

Anthro sources of the CO2 can be directly tied to the uptick. (Per direct carbon ratio studies)

Your number does not work out very well in these well established numbers.