The Global Warming Scam

So what would happen if we took away carbon dioxide and the other trace gases responsible for the greenhouse effect?"Greenhouse gases greatly affect the temperature of the Earth; without them, Earth's surface would be on average about 33 C (59 F)[note 1] colder than at present."
Greenhouse gas - WikipediaThat's right, that tiny fraction of our atmosphere made up by greenhouse gases increases the average temperature of our planet from the freezing point of water to a nice balmy 60 degrees F (or 33 C for our European crowd).So what do you think happens when we increase the concentration of these greenhouse gases? Could it just be that more heat gets trapped in the atmosphere?

We could also mention that at 3,500 parts per million of hydrogen cyanide a human will die in 1 minute. But perhaps the author would scoff at this since HCN would only make up 0.35% of the total atmosphere. What we should really be worried about is that uber toxic nitrogen that makes up 80% of the atmosphere.

BarackZero,Currently the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increase the average global temperature by 60 degrees F. Without these minute percentages of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane we would be living on an ice world. So what do you think happens when we increase the levels of these greenhouse gases? Do you think less heat gets trapped in the atmosphere or more heat?Even more, the major greenhouse gas is water vapor which, due to its very short half life in the atmosphere, is near equilibrium at any point in time. However, carbon dioxide has a relatively long half life in the atmosphere. If you increase the carbon dioxide levels you trap more heat which puts more water vapor in the atmosphere. Raising carbon dioxide levels has more heat trapping capability than just the carbon dioxide alone because of the effects it has on the total climate and atmosphere.The only real question is how much the temperature will go up, not if.

Sea levels are rising, increased carbon dioxide does trap more heat in the atmosphere, and polar bear habitat is shrinking. These are all facts, chief.

These are not extrapolations. They are interpolations of real data points. The y-axis is linear in scale with no stretching or breaking, and it fits all of the historic and modern measurements of carbon dioxide. Here is an example: Where is the hocus pocus? Is your only complaint about the units used to measure carbon dioxide? If so, it is irrelevant to the whole argument. Carbon dioxide at hundreds per parts million has very, very measurable greenhouse effects. Since we are talking about the EFFECT of carbon dioxide in the greenhouse effect then that should be the perspective, should it not? Increasing a known major greenhouse gas by 25% in a 200 year span is going to have an effect on the amount of heat trapped in the atmosphere.

Perhaps you should take your own advice here. There is no way to get more water vapor in the atmosphere without first raising the temperature. The half life of water vapor is about 7 days. It is always near equilibrium with the temperature. Compare this to carbon dioxide which has an atmospheric half life in the tens of years. Also, it doesn't precipitate out like water does. When you up the carbon dioxide levels it traps more heat for a much longer time period and puts more water vapor into the atmosphere. That is what produces temperature last I checked. Why shouldn't it be important in a discussion on average global temperatures? Of course it is since it is the only source of heat for the Earth. Why are you so obsessed with Al Gore? It's a bit creepy, if you ask me. Global climate change is more than Al Gore, you know.

So let's put this altogether then. Carbon dioxide released by man traps more heat in the atmosphere. More heat causes more water to evaporate and increases the warming from water vapor. These two factors then heat the oceans releasing even more carbon dioxide and increasing the temperature even more. So it would seem the me that even small increases of carbon dioxide can have a chain effect, don't you agree?

If I find a cancer researcher who smokes cigarettes does this disprove the link between cigarettes and cancer? What we are condemning is your penchant for misrepresenting the facts. Your diatribe against graphical representation of data is a prime example. You have twisted yourself into logical knots in order to deny the impact that carbon dioxide has on the greenhouse effect.It is a fact that prior to the Industrial Revolution carbon dioxide levels hit a peak of 300 ppm in the last 400,000 years which spans several glaciation cycles. The current level is around 375 ppm. This is 25% higher than at any point in the last 400,000 years as recorded in several ice cores. Do you think it is just a coincidence that this spike in atmospheric carbon dioxide coincides with massive use of fossil fuels that release carbon dioxide?So I have to ask. What do you think will happen when you increase the concentration of a potent greenhouse gas by 25%? Do you think less heat, more heat, or the same amount of heat will be trapped in the atmosphere? I would hope that any answer you give is supported by scientific data, no? Why is it that Global Warming deniers are all about style but not about substance?

The reverse is true also. If we think that by presenting the facts in a forthright and honest matter will change people's minds then we are living in fantasy world. People (like the originator of this thread) have made an emotional decision that GW is a scam, and no amount of evidence will change their mind. There are also people who may very well accept the facts but see no reason to change their lifestyle unless everyone else does first.Shall we call it pragmatic pessimism?

That ban had little to no effect on our lifestyles as compared to a ban on fossil fuels. People had to change very, very little about their day to day routine (if it all) in order to stop using CFC's. It is the change in lifestyle that people have an emotional reaction to. They feel like something is being forced on them, even if it is for the good of humanity as a whole.

BarackZero,What do you think happens when you increase the amount of greenhouse gases in an atompshere? Do you trap more heat, less heat, or the same amount of heat? It's a simple question.

I do understand saturation, and I also understand precipitation. You do understand the linkage between these two mechanisms, do you not? Have you ever seen water vapor precipitate out from the atmosphere (and I spelled it correctly this time). I think they call it "rain" or something like that.So water vapor is always near saturation on a global level, and the halflife of any water molecule in the atmosphere is measured in days. Compare this to carbon dioxide. The half life of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is measured in years, and it is nowhere near saturation. This means that, unlike water vapor, carbon dioxide levels can rise and remain high for years to come. Not so with water vapor.Therefore, the water vapor percentage in the atmosphere can not drive long term climates because it is always at saturation and the half life of water in the atmosphere is very short. Water vapor is not a driver of global climate. However, carbon dioxide CAN drive climate because it does not precipitate out and has a long half life in the atmosphere.So, back to the question that your refused to answer. What happens when we increase the concentration of a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere? Is more heat, less heat, or the same amount of heat trapped in the atmosphere? Simple question.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Given the fact that satellites are used to map the Earth using IR I think it is obvious that absorption is nowhere near saturation. Then why does it precipitate out? I never said that they were different. What I said is that the halflife of any molecule of water in the atmosphere is measured in days to weeks. Therefore, water vapor can not drive temperature. The only way to increase the average amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is to first increase the temperature. Water vapor follows global temperatures.And you still haven't answered my questions. What happens when you increase the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere? Do you trap more heat, the same amount of heat, or less heat?

How many grain farmers in Australia have already lost their jobs due to climate change? A lot. How many businesses in southern Florida will go away when the polar ice caps melt? Quite a few, being underwater and all.

So we shouldn't try and fix the situation just because there is a chance it might not work?Humans increase carbon dioxide levels above that any level seen in the ice cores which go back hundreds of thousands of years. Carbon dioxide absorbs heat. We are now seeing global temperatures rise in lock step with carbon dioxide levels. Increases in temperature will lead to catastrophic results for millions, even billions of people. If these are not valid, concrete reasons to reduce CO2 levels then what would be?