Global Warming

[saggyjones]

While CO2 is technically a "greenhouse gas" it doesn't have nearly the effect that you contend it does.

May I direct back to this post:
https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1859&postcount=35

"The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere. In simple terms, however, the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total greenhouse effect. The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other "minor greenhouse gases." As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.

The adjacent radiation absorption window graphic gives an idea of which molecules absorb various wavelengths. Where the shaded portions completely span between 2 lines it indicates that particular wavelength is fully absorbed and the "window" is saturated (or said to be "closed"). Rather obviously, once a window is saturated adding more gases with the same properties will do nothing. This point seems to cause confusion for some people so perhaps consider multiple shades on a window with each shade blocking half the light coming through - pull one shade and you reduce the light source by half, pull another so you block half the light coming through the first shade, etc.. The effect of each shade diminishes as you keep adding more and eventually you get no additional effect - you have saturated or blocked the radiation window and it makes no difference if you double or quadruple the number of shades again."

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

Junk science? Please. This quote is from a real source:

Water vapor (H2O) causes about 60% of Earth's naturally-occurring greenhouse effect. Other gases influencing the effect include carbon dioxide (CO2) (about 26%), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and ozone (O3) (about 8%). Collectively, these gases are known as greenhouse gases. The greenhouse effect due to carbon dioxide is specifically known as the Callendar effect.

http://www.crystalinks.com/greenhouseffect.html

"Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account...Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect...Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

You don't understand that .28% is a large percentage when dealing with the climate. Even small changes can affect the atmosphere in many ways.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate."

-- Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

-- At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.

Like I said, even seemingly small changes can have a big impact.

-- CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.

You can over-water plants you know, and you can suffocate them with too much CO2.

-- CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.

We are deforesting so much that plants won't be able to handle the CO2 in the same way.

 

[saggyjones]

palerider I'll respond to your posts when I get the chance but for now I can't

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Junk science? Please. This quote is from a real source:

It is a real source -- they refer to the Global Warming alarmism as "junkscience" hence the name.

You don't understand that .28% is a large percentage when dealing with the climate. Even small changes can affect the atmosphere in many ways.

I disagree:

Earth's Atmosphere
N2: 780,000 PPM
O2: 210,000 PPM
Ar: 1,000 PPM and H2O 700 PPM
CO2: 370 PPM
[PPM=parts per million]

When dealing with this, .28% is negligible.

We are deforesting so much that plants won't be able to handle the CO2 in the same way.

The Pacific Research Institute's Index of Leading Environmental Indicators shows that "U.S. forests expanded by 9.5 million acres between 1990 and 2000."

 

[HighVoltage123]

and what is next... Ice Age

 

[palerider]

Junk science? Please. This quote is from a real source:

This is just about the shabbiest sort of response possible saggyjones. An ad homeniem attack on a source is just pitiful. Junk science, for your information, is a real source. In fact, it is often referenced by such august, peer reviewed, publications as science and nature.

Either you can dispute the information provided or you can't. Attacking a source is one of the most obvious and useless of the logical fallacies.

 

[palerider]

and what is next... Ice Age

After the earth warms to its natural mean and stays there for anywhere from 250,000 years to a million years, then yes, the temperature will begin to decline and the earth will once again enter a deep freeze ice age. That is what the earth does.

 

[saggyjones]

You seem to have some difficulty in separating reality from computer models. I don't blame you because your high priests don't make it clear to you, or anyone else, when they are citing the results of climate simulations and models and when they are citing observational data, that being, data collected from actual measurements.

We know from over a half a million years worth of ice cores, and about 600 million years worth of sedimentary data that rising CO2 atmospheric CO2 levels lag behind rising temperatures. Rising CO2 levels are a result of increased temperatures, not a cause. The computer models suggest that a small change in atmospheric CO2 can cause a change in global temperature, but there is no actual data to support that. If you are interested in seeing the record so far on the accuracy of computer modeling here is a comprehensive study.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm

Computer modeliing is notoriously inaccurate. When they can't make a model that accurately reflects what the temperature was and is, and how it was and is affected by various forcings, how do you put any trust at all in what these models are predicting for the future?

The reason that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere lag behind a rise in temperature is that warm water can not hold as much CO2 as cold water. When the mean temperature rises, the oceans rise and in turn, release held CO2, thus raising the atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

It appears that it is you who has never studied climate change. You have memorized the misinformation that has been given to you quite well though. Memorization, however, does not constitute study. Study would entail actually understanding the science and few, with the exception of the high priests, who understand the science accept AGW theory.



You are right that water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas but you are dead wrong when you claim that CO2 has the most impact. Water vapor accounts for 95% of the earth's greenhouse effect. Are you aware that computer models don't include water vapor in their calculations because we don't posess enough computing power to include water vapor because of its complexity. Imagine, taking computer models seriously when they don't even include the source of 95% of the earth's greehouse effect.

Water vapor is 99.999% natural in origin. And the vast bulk of other greenhouse gases are also natural in origin. As I have said, mankind's entire CO2 production is not enough to even overcome the natural deviation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machinery.

Refer back to the historical temperature chart that I provided. Note that the earth has a temperature range in its ups and downs and it doesn't really matter whether the atmospheric CO2 concentrations are 7000 parts per million or 380 parts per million, the temperatures go on as they have always gone on. This is a perfect example of observational data not matching the computer models. Now what are you going to believe? What you can actually measure and see, or what a computer tells you that you should have seen?

Here is a graphic depicting man's contribution to the total atmospheric CO2 concentration.

As I said, we don't even make enough to overcome the natural deviation.

Here is a graphic illustrating man's contribution to the total greenouse effect based on observational data as opposed to computer models.

As you can see man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 is responsible for a whopping 0.117% of the greenhouse effect. that is one hundred and seventeen one thousanths of one percent of the greenhouse effect. Go try and scare little kids with AGW theory, not me.



Mankind is responsible for a total of 0.278% of the total greenhouse effect. Do you grasp the insignifigance of two hundred and seventy eight one thousanths of one percent? There is no debate. The AGW scare is based on computer models which have a history of being wrong.

I honestly can't argue with this, so you win. But I still believe that us burning fossil fuels has an impact on the environment and that we need to move toward alternative energy.

You can't create incentives that are equal to profit motive. We will not have these sources of energy until it becomes profitable to develop them and when it does become profitable, they will appear more quickly than you can imagine.

The government can give tax breaks and subsidies to companies doing research on alternative energy, and they can conduct more research themselves.

Have you ever noticed that people (if they can afford to do so) tend to migrate from cold areas to warm areas? Exactly what is it about living in warm conditions that you believe will be "undesirable"?

I already admitted that I can't refute your global warming argument, so I take this back. But here's a different question: Do you think more pollution will cause undesirable living conditions?

The weather is already unpredictable. Tell me, how much of the world's food production is presently grown in Africa? And are you trying to argue that other crops wouldn't grow in Africa? Look at your paleohistory. When the earth is in its warm periods, there were no deserts. The whole earth was green.

If the entire arctic ice cap melted today, the mean sea level would drop considerably. The arctic ice cap is floating, ice displaces more area than melted water. Melt the ice and sea level goes down. And since warmer temperatures will result in more rainfall, there is no assurace that melting the rest of the ice will result in any signifigant rise in sea level. The fact is that the earth has warmed to the point that no ice at all existed over and over and over and it is in the process of doing it again. With us, or without us.

One other thing.

Get yourself a new temperature chart to believe in. This one is based on computer modeling and not actual observational data. It is accepted, even by the high priests at the IPCC that the earth has warmed .6 degrees in the past century with 70% of that temperature rise happening in the first half of the past century. Your chart shows almost a .8 degree rise in the past century with over half the rise happening in the past 20 years. Just another example of believing what a computer tells you that you should have seen in lieu of what you have actually seen and measured.

Already addressed this.

 

[saggyjones]

It is you who is using information from computer models rather than actual observed data to make the case for AGW. If you use actual numbers, there is no debate.

And are you saying that the metaphors are inaccurate, or that you just don't like them?

You can't measure the accuracy of the statements I was referring to.
Your fancy writing may impress USMC but it doesn't impress me.

The temperature has been rising for tens of thousands of years. The ice has used to extend to Texas. It has melted back all the way to the far north of canada and it did that without the benefit of a single internal combustion engine. Now since the ice has melted back that far without our help, what makes you believe that suddenly, we are responsible for the warming trend that has been going on since we were using stone tools?

ANd your chart? Get a new one. That one is based on computer models and not observational data. Even the IPCC acknowledges that the earth has warmed .6 degrees C in the past century with about 70% of the warming taking place in the first half of the last century. Your chart reflects the almost .8 degree rise that computer models said shoud have happened and they have most of that rise happening in the past 20 years. The computer models are almost never right.

Already addressed this in another post.

 

[saggyjones]

More rediculous than you suggesting that we couldn't have breathed the atmosphere of the past in your attempt to demonstrate that CO2 is going to kill us?

Yeah, a lot more ridiculous.

 

[saggyjones]

Another example of believing what you are told rather than what is real. I have been to the area that they want to drill in ANWR. I was stationed in Alaska in the 70's and had the opportunity to see most of the state. In the area they want to drill, there is no wildlife. Not even birds. There are no plants, There is nothing but ice and howling wind for most of the year. The pictures they show you of caribou and birds and cute little foxes is in ANWR but it is hundreds of miles south of where they want to drill. ANWR is the size of South Carolina and the area they want to drill is about the size of a small town.

ANd if you are serious about getting out from under the thumb of foriegners for our energy needs, then yes. lets drill wherever the oil happens to be. Modern technology is far different from the old days when the gushers flooded the landscape with oil. Modern drilling operations have a very small footprint.

I really don't care about drilling there. My point was that of course people are going to oppose drilling there, because it's a wildlife refuge. It doesn't matter if there's not much wildlife there, people still aren't going to like it.

 

[saggyjones]

It is a real source -- they refer to the Global Warming alarmism as "junkscience" hence the name.

That site seems very biased, but it doesn't matter now because I'm not arguing with you.

I disagree:

Earth's Atmosphere
N2: 780,000 PPM
O2: 210,000 PPM
Ar: 1,000 PPM and H2O 700 PPM
CO2: 370 PPM
[PPM=parts per million]

When dealing with this, .28% is negligible.



The Pacific Research Institute's Index of Leading Environmental Indicators shows that "U.S. forests expanded by 9.5 million acres between 1990 and 2000."

Addressed in a response to palerider.

 

[saggyjones]

This is just about the shabbiest sort of response possible saggyjones. An ad homeniem attack on a source is just pitiful. Junk science, for your information, is a real source. In fact, it is often referenced by such august, peer reviewed, publications as science and nature.

Either you can dispute the information provided or you can't. Attacking a source is one of the most obvious and useless of the logical fallacies.

It seems very biased to me, but it doesn't matter now does it?

 

[palerider]

I honestly can't argue with this, so you win. But I still believe that us burning fossil fuels has an impact on the environment and that we need to move toward alternative energy.

We do have an impact but it is local, not global. If you dig a hole in your back yard and plant a pecan tree, you have an impact on the environment but it is not a global impact. We simply are not capable of producing a global impact. Human beings occupy roughly 3% of the entire land mass of the world, we don't cover enough of it for our local impacts to even begin to have an effect on the global climate.

The government can give tax breaks and subsidies to companies doing research on alternative energy, and they can conduct more research themselves.

Tax breaks and incentives are the palest ghosts of profit motive. Would you be more likely to do a thing because I was going to give you $100 in tax breaks or merchandise discounts or the like, or because doing it was going to make you a billion dollars? Tax breaks and incentives really are like $100 to a $ billion dollars when you consider the value of each respectively.

I already admitted that I can't refute your global warming argument, so I take this back. But here's a different question: Do you think more pollution will cause undesirable living conditions?

More polution degrades our local environment and can result in long term problems for us and I believe that those who deliberately try to hide their polution should be brought to justice and be made to pay a heavy price. Secreting toxic agents away should demand decades of jail time without parole but that is not the same as causing the damage to the world economy that a scheme like Kyoto would cause in the name of a made up crisis.

 

[palerider]

I really don't care about drilling there. My point was that of course people are going to oppose drilling there, because it's a wildlife refuge. It doesn't matter if there's not much wildlife there, people still aren't going to like it.

People aren't going to like it because a false picture has been painted of it by environmentalists. In truth, it is not a wildlife refuge because in truth, no wildlife lives there. It is a desolate ice plain that was falsely called a wildlife refuge in order to keep the resources there locked away to satisfy a very specific environmentalist agenda.

 

[palerider]

It seems very biased to me, but it doesn't matter now does it?

Science is not biased saggyjones. Science is science. Junk science isn't providing any information that is not true and verifiable. Pseudoscience like the IPCC reports represent genuine bias.

And yes it matters because a goodly percentage of the population believes the pseudoscience rather than the actual science because they either aren't willing to invest the time to understand the real science, or just aren't capable of understanding it.