Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Global Warming...Fact or Fiction?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by gunnut
    You seem to think carbon heats up the earth. That's not the case. The sun heats up the earth. The earth reacts in ways we don't fully understand. It's not cut and dry like we pump x amount of carbon into the air and the earth heats up by y degrees.
    Originally posted by gunnut
    They emit ZERO heat.
    Of course carbon dioxide itself doesn't emit heat by itself. It absorbs atmospheric heat that would otherwise be dissipated into space, then emits that heat back into the atmosphere. That's why it's called a "greenhouse gas," because it has an effect similar to the panes of glass in a greenhouse, which allows light resulting in heat in but prevents some of that heat from escaping.

    So yeah, you're right, carbon dioxide doesn't produce heat, it just prevents a portion from escaping.
    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

    Comment


    • Originally posted by svguy View Post
      I will take it from that response that you do not believe that there has been an overall temperature rise over the last..... oh...... 55 years or so?
      Nope. Take it from my quote that I don't see that temperature rise as anomalous.
      In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

      Leibniz

      Comment


      • Originally posted by dalem View Post
        Wait a minute. You've just invalidated all of science with the above post. Pretty bold of you, I'd say.

        -dale
        Actually Dale, what is being said is that the mere existence of a MWP in and of itself has no bearing on whether CO2 is the major present causative factor of the current warming.

        If the thesis was "Warming ONLY occurs as a result of CO2-based triggers", the proof of a worldwide and deep MWP would be proof of the opposite of the conjecture; thus dispositively disproving the conjecture.

        I think that the there is somewhat worldwide acceptance that there are multiple potential triggers or causative items; acting alone and/or in conjunction with one another.

        Heck, you spout them all the time. (sun, orbital mechanics, .... etc.)

        So yes, the evidence of the MWP is very germane to whether Co2 is a *dispositive* causative agent; it is vastly less germane as to whether Co2 is a major factor in this one.

        Think about it....

        Comment


        • Originally posted by dalem View Post
          And the point I'm trying to make which you and your partneer are so non-deftly trying to avoid, is that you don't know what the effect is of more or less CO2 on global temperature, so keening about the minutae of ppm and albedo and all the rest is meaningless right now.

          -dale
          Not trying to avoid it at all, Dale. You are the one hung up on the term "driver". A "driver" (from what I can take in this field) is something that adds an effect.

          Now that we have gotten past the fact that you have somewhat misconstrued the term by "blending it in" with all of the other effects (or other "drivers", both positive and negative), I'd be happy to discuss the other issues with you.

          My first comments on this board were directed at the first stark statements that "CO2 has no effect" and that "CO2 is not driver", which is blatantly wrong, and have been pretty much limited to that subject.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by svguy View Post
            Actually Dale, what is being said is that the mere existence of a MWP.......
            What is MWP?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by dalem View Post
              You mean to say that ICE is more likely to melt than DIRT?

              Genius. Pure genius.

              -dale
              The article really did not say that at all. The comment was more directed at the note that the "thicknesses" of the atmospheric components between the equator and the poles.

              It helps to read an article prior to commenting on someone's statements on it.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by 7thsfsniper View Post
                What is MWP?
                Medieval Warm Period.
                In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                Leibniz

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                  Of course carbon dioxide itself doesn't emit heat by itself. It absorbs atmospheric heat that would otherwise be dissipated into space, then emits that heat back into the atmosphere. That's why it's called a "greenhouse gas," because it has an effect similar to the panes of glass in a greenhouse, which allows light resulting in heat in but prevents some of that heat from escaping.

                  So yeah, you're right, carbon dioxide doesn't produce heat, it just prevents a portion from escaping.
                  Right. I don't disagree. But the predominant force that warms the planet is the sun. We can have an atmosphere full of CO2 and freeze to death if the sun dims a bit. We can burn to death if the sun warms a bit even if we have half the CO2 we have right now.

                  The current warming trend, and probably all the warming trends in the past, is due to the sun radiating slightly more heat over the past several decades. Doesn't matter how much CO2 we put in the air, it will not alter the sun.

                  Then there's the earth itself. We really have no idea how the earth reacts to slightly more CO2 in the air. It may not even notice. Or it may compensate before we realized the effect.

                  We have no working model that describes the earth's climate. UN's best model that describes the current temperature doesn't work when you plug in data from the past. If we can't verify that it works, how can we trust its results for the future?
                  "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                  Comment


                  • Then come up with a working model. Taking into account of ALL variables on the planet. Don't just discuss this subject as if the earth is a controlled system where only 1 variable (CO2) changes and affects nothing else.
                    My argument and/or theory of GW, which I have explained WITH scientific evidence is built around considering the fact that the atmosphere and substances in it can and are affected by variables within this ecosystem. I have asked you specifically to explain WHAT variables stop/moot carbon in the atmosphere affecting heat absorption.
                    If you canot provide an example of one or more of the variables interacting with carbon in the atmosphere whereby resulting in influencing or decreasing Joseph Fourier's scientific process of the green house effect then you must assume it occurs, no?!

                    It seems that your argument is that 'We dont know'; we do not fully understand the mechanics of the earth so we cannot be totally sure that there are variables within the atmosphere that affect the tons of carbon we release into it every year. This is a flimsy argument and careless too.

                    Your assertions and arguments that the step by step outline of how GW occurs is invalid because there are variables -unknown/not-yet-understood by us- that can affect carbon in the atmpsphere is merely wishful thinking to support an assertion, akin to saying "but what if and what if this". If there is no scientific evidence to support that there are varaibles can moot the occurance of the green house effect than you must assume it occurs. Are there any scientists that have speculated that there are even variables beyond our understanding that can affect or influnce the green house effect?

                    (I do not consider carbon a driver/emitter of heat but a substancecontributing to a chain reation that results in the retaining of solar heat in the atmosphere that would have otherwise been lost -to space- if it was not there)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by svguy
                      The current warming trend, and probably all the warming trends in the past, is due to the sun radiating slightly more heat over the past several decades. Doesn't matter how much CO2 we put in the air, it will not alter the sun.
                      Evidence suggests that the MWP was localized to NW Europe, not worldwide. Likely had to do something with the Gulf Stream. Oceanic temperatures have a huge impact on atmospheric temperatures.

                      As far as it not mattering how much CO2 is put into the air, yes, it does matter, because the Earth retains more of whatever radiant heat derived from the Sun. It retains more radiant heat from a cooler Sun as well as more of the radiant heat from a warmer Sun. Increased C02 retains increased amounts of radiant heat.

                      So, if we tripled the amount of C02 in the atmosphere and the Sun heats up, the increased C02 would aggravate the heating trend.

                      Conversely, if we tripled the amount of C02 in the atmosphere and the Sun cools down, the increased C02 would mitigate the heating trend.
                      "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by dalem View Post
                        We're not really disagreeing here. I understand the mechanics of heat trapping and greenhouse and the rest, I just don't believe that CO2 emission is something we need to worry about because its effect is negligible. There is zero evidence that suggests it is anything but negligible. That's all.


                        -dale
                        Why is CO2 emission and its effec negligible?

                        ...is that you don't know what the effect is of more or less CO2 on global temperature, so keening about the minutae of ppm and albedo and all the rest is meaningless right now.
                        Isn't Joseph Fourier's Green House effect evidence of this? Or is is that there may be some unknown/misunderstood variables that moot the green house effect, BUT we just haven't discovered it yet?

                        If anyone is claiming that because the percentage of natural carbon in the atmosphere is so tiny percentage that it is hard to believe it can have an effect on global temperatures, here is some evidence of how introducion of chemicals to the atmosphere can affect the earth. (maybe thats what you mean by CO2 emissions are negligible due to their quantity?)

                        The ozone molecules in the atmosphere make up 0.0 to 0.07 ppmv (0%-7x10-6%).

                        Air pollution is a chemical, physical (e.g. particulate matter) or biological agent that modifies the natural characteristics of the atmosphere in an unwanted way. Stratospheric ozone depletion due to air pollution (chiefly from chlorofluorocarbons) has long been recognized as a threat to human health as well as to the earth's ecosystems.
                        Wow, chlorofluorocarbons CFC's got all the way up to the stratosphere (thats the 2nd layer, out of 5, of the atmosphere) AND...wait...AND caused ozone to deplete creating holes in the ozone layer. So substances released by humans were able to penetrate atmospheric layers and react with other substances in the atmosphere all without being affected by any mysterious misunderstood variables. Wacky huh!

                        Carbon must be some "special" molecule, so it will be affected by some variables, right, not like Ozone which is an exception ofcourse.

                        Evolution on Earth

                        One of the earliest types of bacteria was the cyanobacteria. Fossil evidence indicates that bacteria shaped like these existed approximately 3.3 billion years ago and were the first oxygen-producing evolving phototropic organisms. They were responsible for the initial conversion of the earth's atmosphere from an anoxic state to an oxic state (that is, from a state without oxygen to a state with oxygen) during the period 2.7 to 2.2 billion years ago. Being the first to carry out oxygenic photosynthesis, they were able to produce oxygen while sequestering carbon dioxide in organic molecules, playing a major role in oxygenating the atmosphere.

                        Photosynthesising plants would later evolve and continue releasing oxygen and sequestering carbon dioxide. Over time, excess carbon became locked in fossil fuels, sedimentary rocks (notably limestone), and animal shells. As oxygen was released, it reacted with ammonia to release nitrogen; in addition, bacteria would also convert ammonia into nitrogen. But most of the nitrogen currently present in the atmosphere results from sunlight-powered photolysis of ammonia released steadily over the aeons from volcanoes.

                        Yes, I understand that the bacteria made the atmosphere oxic over a long period of time (was it almost a billion yrs or 700 mil yrs, read the quote) but it is tiny, tiny bacteria altering the chemical composition of the earths atmosphere.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by dalem View Post
                          Wait a minute. You've just invalidated all of science with the above post. Pretty bold of you, I'd say.

                          -dale
                          He's known for it. A sockpuppet formerly known as Tanq_Tonic.
                          In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                          Leibniz

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Helium View Post
                            My argument and/or theory of GW, which I have explained WITH scientific evidence is built around considering the fact that the atmosphere and substances in it can and are affected by variables within this ecosystem. I have asked you specifically to explain WHAT variables stop/moot carbon in the atmosphere affecting heat absorption.
                            If you canot provide an example of one or more of the variables interacting with carbon in the atmosphere whereby resulting in influencing or decreasing Joseph Fourier's scientific process of the green house effect then you must assume it occurs, no?!
                            No. Unless you can prove that it occurs as a direct result, it does not. It would be known as a theory. There are many theories around. Just because you can't disprove it, doesn't mean you can prove it.

                            Originally posted by Helium View Post
                            It seems that your argument is that 'We dont know'; we do not fully understand the mechanics of the earth so we cannot be totally sure that there are variables within the atmosphere that affect the tons of carbon we release into it every year. This is a flimsy argument and careless too.
                            Sure, we release a lot of CO2 in the air, but it's insignificant as a greenhouse gas. Water vapor may not be as good a greenhouse gas as CO2 molecule for molecule, but it accounts for more of a percentage in our atmosphere percentage wise. Methane is a much smaller percentage wise, but is a far more potent greenhouse gas. IPCC's report pretty much ignored the fact that water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. It assinged all the heating to CO2.

                            Originally posted by Helium View Post
                            Your assertions and arguments that the step by step outline of how GW occurs is invalid because there are variables -unknown/not-yet-understood by us- that can affect carbon in the atmpsphere is merely wishful thinking to support an assertion, akin to saying "but what if and what if this". If there is no scientific evidence to support that there are varaibles can moot the occurance of the green house effect than you must assume it occurs. Are there any scientists that have speculated that there are even variables beyond our understanding that can affect or influnce the green house effect?
                            I don't understand this part.

                            Originally posted by Helium View Post
                            (I do not consider carbon a driver/emitter of heat but a substancecontributing to a chain reation that results in the retaining of solar heat in the atmosphere that would have otherwise been lost -to space- if it was not there)
                            CO2 is insignificant as a main cause of the "so called" global warming we're experiencing right now. That's all I'm trying to say.

                            The earth's climate fluctuates. The sun's radiance fluctuates. CO2 is but a tiny part of the entire equation. To assign blame on human consumption of fossil fuel as the sole cause of "global warming" is quite irresponsible.
                            "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                              Evidence suggests that the MWP was localized to NW Europe, not worldwide. Likely had to do something with the Gulf Stream. Oceanic temperatures have a huge impact on atmospheric temperatures.

                              As far as it not mattering how much CO2 is put into the air, yes, it does matter, because the Earth retains more of whatever radiant heat derived from the Sun. It retains more radiant heat from a cooler Sun as well as more of the radiant heat from a warmer Sun. Increased C02 retains increased amounts of radiant heat.

                              So, if we tripled the amount of C02 in the atmosphere and the Sun heats up, the increased C02 would aggravate the heating trend.

                              Conversely, if we tripled the amount of C02 in the atmosphere and the Sun cools down, the increased C02 would mitigate the heating trend.
                              I think you attributed my quote to someone else. :))

                              I don't disagree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or even has a part in global warming. What I'm trying to argue is that it's a tiny part of it, insignificant, really. The earth's climate changes without any detectable CO2 increase or decrease. Our records are not detailed enough to tell us the history of earth's climate down to the variation of 1C over a period of 30 years. Our records are of thousands of years at a time, with temperature variation of more than a few degrees celsius. Where ice core samples are spotty, "scientists" make up stuff to fill in the holes. The very foundation of this CO2 leading to global warming is shady.

                              It's like a business with an operating budget of $10,000 a day. Sure, switching all CRT to LCD will save power, but by how much? Does saving $3 a day really matter to a budget of $10,000? Power company can raise the rates and wipe out all the savings and then some. Or it can lower the rates and make up all the difference (using CRT) with leftovers.
                              "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                              Comment


                              • Sure, we release a lot of CO2 in the air, but it's insignificant as a greenhouse gas. Water vapor may not be as good a greenhouse gas as CO2 molecule for molecule, but it accounts for more of a percentage in our atmosphere percentage wise. Methane is a much smaller percentage wise, but is a far more potent greenhouse gas. IPCC's report pretty much ignored the fact that water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. It assinged all the heating to CO2.
                                Can you provide any evidence, such as a scientific paper or scientist or just a wiki page that CO2 is insignificant as a green house gas?

                                I am all too aware that methane has a much worse effect on the atmpsphere. And GW is seen in terms of that 'Human actions are changing the chemical composition quantities of the atmosphere', then water vapour (as I already recognized as a green house gas/component in a quote) remains constant and at natural levels because we do not ADD or release water vapour but we release tonns of carbon which does alter the quantities thus temperature. You must distinguish between organic green house chemicals which result in creating life through making the atmosphere oxic and a specific temporature and polutant green house gases which are the same chemicals but released by humans therefore altering the chemical composition of the at....ere.

                                If you believe CO2 is insignificant because of it being a tiny percentage of the overall atmospheric make up, then you must also believe Ozone is irrelevant because its even less than carbon but it just protects the earth from UV rays and also can be affected by human alteration of chemical substances through introducing CFC's. But then again the earth is alot flat isn't it.

                                If you refer to one of my posts above the actual quantity of carbon in the at...ere is naturally small but that does not mean its insignificant, the fact of the matter is if you introduce more of any subtance into the atmo...ere then you alter the chemical composition affecting oxic and temperature. Refer to the evolution of the atmosphere over billions of years and what the climate was like on the ground at the time
                                Last edited by Helium; 09 May 08,, 07:53. Reason: add info

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X