Global Warming

quote:

---

And to think they believe Co2 increases cause global warming when it appears to have just the opposite effect.

---

I see no evidence of that. However, if your two datasets aren't perfectly correlated, measurement error might make the temperature increase appear to occur before the CO2 increase. Of course, that would be nothing more than an artifact.

quote:

---

Perhaps the increasing amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere is buffering the small amounts of atmospheric Co2 increases from fossil fuel.

---

Except that water vapor is also a GHG. Also, increased water vapor in the stratosphere would absorb more insolation and push the stratospheric temperature up...not down. This makes things worse for the anti-GW crowd, not better. Edited by Admin, : Reduce image size.

I agree that water vapor is the bigger culprit in respect to global warming. I personally don't see Co2 the problem in that mans contribution is less than .035 % of the total global greenhouse gases but the sun is causing more water vapor in the atmosphere.

It's that damn evaporation problem. We need to get anti-evaporation covers over the oceans to do something about that.Maybe we also need to get some giant sunglasses up there, to cut down on the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth.Seriously, I don't personally know what the share splitting is between water vapor and carbon dioxide. I do think that human influences have little to nothing to do with water vapor levels. That is, other than the feedback loop, that increased temperatures cause increases in atmospheric water vapor content.Moose

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

​

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

​

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

You appear to be contradicting your own claims. For example:From Message 90 From Message 92 and this:From Message 64 From Message 88 Some documentation that could support any of these claims may clear up what I see as contradictions. As I said before however, the discussion of neutrinos and a young sun may best be put forth as a new topic.

In an earlier link on this thread the Russian scientists have no problem with neutrinos and an young earth. Whatever but in respect to global warming if the core temps of the sun are rising slowly as its core becomes denser over time as light particles (neutrinos, etc...) are emitted from its core however with lithium and beryllium presence the sun its said presently is less than 3 million degrees.The Russian core harmonics study of our sun shows evidence of an homogenous core which is not evidence of an old star. Is the sun heating up as its core slowly becomes more dense through the passage of time? The evidence being withheld appears that the sun is slowly heating up over the passage of time resulting perhaps an increase in ocean front property, etc...Is global warming causing the glaciation of Antartica, Greenland. Co2 while meaningless too is a small contributor to the glaciation of the polar caps. How is global warming not possibly going to cause the ocean levels to drop not rise because of the increases in ice mass over the polar regions, etc...More ocean front property in the next 100 years? News: Breaking stories & updates - The TelegraphEdited by Charley, : No reason given.

Vacate, Charley has been around before under other names (he seems to be willing to be dishonest enough to register under a new name).He will NEVER listen to what you post. He WILL post made-up utter nonsense. You are wasting your time if you expect any rational discussion.You may however enjoy seeing just how amusingly ridiculous you can goad him into being.

If environmentalists believe particulates are like solar sunglasses were causing global cooling in the 1970's then why are not these same environmentalists not encouraging that what they believe to be the opposite of global warming.Burn fossil fuel like coal to help the planet and tax alternative energies a better alternative than taxing that which according to the environmentalists of the 1970's promotes global cooling.If your trying to cool the planet it makes little sense to tax that which fights global warming, etc...Edited by Charley, : No reason given.

quote:

---

personally don't see Co2 the problem in that mans contribution is less than .035 % of the total global greenhouse gases

---

I don't know if this figure is correct, but the anti-GW crowd often makes claims similar to this. That is, man-made CO2 makes up such a small percentage of the total greenhouse gasses so it shouldn't be considered a problem.The logic in that claim is completely fallacious. First off, the greenhouse effect is essential for life on earth (atleast our life), since it keeps the temperature above freezing. So pointing out there are other greenhouses gases in higher amounts in the atmosphere is completely besides the point.What is important is which greenhouses gases are increasing, since our modern day civilization depends on the earth a temperature within a particular range.Greenhouse gases aren't inherently bad, it's an increase in greenhouse gases that is the problem for us. And take a guess as to what kind of greenhouse gas is steadily increasing?

Because that didn't happen. The "global cooling craze" that supposedly happened in the 70's is a myth. There was an article in Newsweek; that was pretty much it. There was no consensus in the 70's as to the effects of anthropogenic greenhouse emissions.Now, there is. That's no conspiracy; that's the emerging knowledge of science.

The only greenhouse gas that is particularly important is water vapor. Are you worried that global warming is not raising the oceans and perhaps might be lowering the levels of the oceans, etc...?Is global warming causing the glaciation of Antartica, Greenland. Co2 while meaningless too is a small contributor to the glaciation of the polar caps. How is global warming not possibly going to cause the ocean levels to drop not rise because of the increases in ice mass over the polar regions, etc...More ocean front property in the next 100 years?News: Breaking stories & updates - The Telegraph Water vapor is increasing steadily in the atmosphere, because the sun is driving global warming.There has been a 2 ppmv increase of stratospheric water vapour since the middle 1950s. This is substantial given typical current stratospheric values of 4-6 ppmv. Photochemical oxidation of methane in the stratosphere produces approximately two molecules of water vapour per molecule of methane. The increase in the concentration of tropospheric methane since the 1950s (0.55 ppmv) is responsible for at most one half of the increase in stratospheric water vapour over this time period. It is not clear what is responsible for the remainder of the observed increase in stratospheric water vapour.Object not found! Believe it or not Co2 increases only cause plants to thrive(produce more oxygen), if the earths temp is going to rise another degree over 100 years how is that not a good thing. Is the glass half empty or half full. The evidence supports its half full which is a good thing a more temperate climate, increased plant growth, etc... Edited by Charley, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The only greenhouse gas that is particularly important is water vapor. Are you worried that global warming is not raising the oceans and perhaps might be lowering the levels of the oceans, etc...?

---

This would be the first time in recent geologic history that that has happened. I personally have seen the evidence for both lower (carbonate dunes that dip beneath the ocean from the last glacial) and higher (inland wavecut cliffs and fossil reefs from the 5e interglacial) Pleistocene sea levels.An interesting point you raise is whether the net effect of global warming will be positive or negative. I'm skeptical of it being positive once coastal erosion starts being a problem, but it's a much better scenario than a cooling period. Variability in general tends to be bad, it's cold trends that have historically created the most havoc for society.If you live in the Maldives, the glass is half empty, if you want to start a vinyard in Scotland, it's half full.

You must have missed the fact that the current co2 level is at least 30% higher then it has been during the whole period cover by the graph

By golly, it sure does say that, doesn't it?Of course, as I said, it doesn't say anything at all about it being anthropogenic. But you think it must be anthropogenic, so I guess it must be.Edited by subbie, : No reason given.Edited by subbie, : No reason given.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

I guess I'm not sure what you think the unknowns are, here. Do you think it's not known whether or not human activities result in CO2?Or maybe you don't think it's possible to know how much CO2 human activities produce?Or maybe you don't think it's possible to know what happens to that CO2? Well, when you emit CO2 at an altitude of, say, 6 to 50 feet above the surface of the Earth, where do you suppose it goes? The moon?Maybe you don't think it's possible to know how much CO2 is emitted by non-human actions? Like, maybe you think we can't possibly know how many volcanoes, for instance, are erupting at any time? Or that it's impossible to come to an estimate of how much CO2 they emit?I guess what I'm asking could be stated simply. If it was asserted that atmospheric CO2 levels had risen by X amount, what would it take to prove to you that that X came from humans?

I didn't say anything was unknown.I didn't say anything about how much CO2 humans produce.I didn't say anything about what happens to CO2.I didn't say anything about non-human produced CO2.I didn't say anything about proving how much of the rise in CO2 is attributable to humans.All I said was that the graph that fallacy cop linked to didn't say anything about anthropogenic CO2, despite his representation that the graph would make it clear.Honestly, crash, if you'd stop reading everything that people write through your left-polarized glasses, I really think you'd have an easier time understanding what people are actually saying, rather than what you think they must be saying based on your assessment of what they believe.Edited by subbie, : No reason given.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat