Global Warming...Fact or Fiction?

[dark-alias]

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

That is a great idea!

[dalem]

The ONLY measure and I say ONLY measure is Amounts of Carbon released into the atmosphere. Because we all know carbon heats, making the air hotter and so on.

Incorrect.

-dale

[Helium]

I don't. Could you give me an in-depth explanation please. Not a link to a paper which I'm sure not to understand, but in your own words?:)

The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 and was first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. It is the process by which absorption and emission of infrared radiation by atmospheric gases warm a planet's lower atmosphere and surface.

Existence of the greenhouse effect as such is not disputed. Naturally occurring greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of about 33 °C (59 °F), without which Earth would be uninhabitable.[24][25] On Earth, the major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70% of the greenhouse effect (not including clouds); carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26%; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9%; and ozone, which causes 3–7%.[26][27] The issue is how the strength of the greenhouse effect changes when human activity increases the atmospheric concentrations of some greenhouse gases.

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?

[Shek]

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:)

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

[Roosveltrepub]

Believe whatever you want. I don't care if you believe purple lizards eat your socks every night and then poop them out unchanged the next morning.

But don't try and peddle your belief as fact.

And why not continue this argument in any of the 7 or 8 threads that have already covered this ground in the last 3 years instead of here?

-dale

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]

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.

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]

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?

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]

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?

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]

Troung,

You need to lay off the chocolate milk.

Invites for single malts are comin your way Troung

[Parihaka]

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 :) ).

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

[Parihaka]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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%

I think your math is off.

No actually it's about .28% of total greenhouse (anthro & natural) gases

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.

It's (anthropogenic co2) contribution to the greenhouse effect is about .117%

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.

[Parihaka]

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.

My numbers are off, quite possibly, it is after all an imprecise science as illustrated by Sheks numbers (he's not my 'cohort' by the way, we're not your enemy;) at least I don't regard myself as such).
The 9 -25% of the greenhouse effect is IIRC are the calculations used for the IPCC models excluding water vapour?

Edit: and the total figure for all CO2?