Global warming

[wiseones2cents]

I fully agree that we would be better off reducing dependence on petroleum for energy and transportation. But in case you have not noticed the MAIN focus of the AGW crowd is CO2. The main focus of the AGW summits is to concentrate on reducing carbon footprint. and, as is typical of the far left political factions, their answer seems to be limited to the idea of taxing or fining carbon footprints. It's fucking stupid, and those who support them are equally fucking stupid.

The carbon footprint they are reffering to is carbon caused by man AKA pollution. And this IS the main focus, and deforestation.

No, what is stupid is that the fines are sometimes smaller than the profits accumulated by polluting. Therefore the company just continues to pollute and they never get shut down.

Did you know you can develop film in lake Ontario thanks to Kodak? Thank GOD for the digital camera.

Whats stupid is allowing these people to pollute unrestrained.

I agree that alternative energies is the best option but until then? Technology to reduce pollution is the quick fix answer.

CH4 forcing: I give you reference to an actual scientific study that shows CH4 concentrations found in our atmosphere are too low to make a difference in heat retention in the atmosphere. You counter with WIKI? How about showing a scientific study that proves the heat retention of CH4 at 1500 ppbv is measurably lower than heat retention at 1750 ppbv? The study I referenced for you shows the opposite - the difference in heat retention at those low levels is immeasurable. For CH4 to start actually show a green house effect, concentrations would have to rise above 100 ppmv, or over 60 times present levels. The WIKI article simply makes the same base, unsupported assumption that CH4 can cause a greenhouse effect at low concentrations because of it's molecular heat retention properties. Experiemental data shows that assumption to be incorrect.

Because it balances itseelf out due to the amount of oxygen. Though what happens if that balance is disturbed? CH4 is just one of the pollutants.

CO2 makes up ALOT less than 1% of the Atmosphere yet plays a major role in our enviornment.

Additionally, good old water vapor has 20 times the heat retention factor as CH4. Are you going to start calling water vapor a GW pollutant?

No. It is organic. I believe the other ones emit radiation.

Deforestation has many problems associated with it that make the continued practice unwise. However changing the carbon cycle is not one of those problems. First, the vasst majority of photosynthetic activity takes place in the oceans via phytoplankton. All the tropical forests in the world contribute only about 3%. Additionally, most deforestation results in human agricultural areas, which is comprised of human modified crops (ie: bred or designed for fastest growth) that have as much if not more CO2 exchange per acre as the forest they replace. And let's not, of course, mention the fact that the carbon cycle is exactly that: a CYCLE. Trees grow and take in carbon to build its cell structures. Then it dies and releases all that carbon back into the atmosphere via CO2 and CH4. When men cut down trees and use the lumber they are actually reducing the return of carbon to the atmosphere than when those trees die naturally and decay. Deforestation is bad. But it is not warming the planet.

I have heard that the oceans produce most of the oxygen and it makes sense.
THOUGH the ocean converts ONLY ONE THIRD of the CO2. Therefore trees play a significant role.

And as the ocean heats up, more oxygen is released but its ability to absorb CO2 from the air decreases.

Not to mention what bad effects the pollutants have to ocean life.

Here is some interesting read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

In the oceans
Main article: Carbon cycle
There is about fifty times as much carbon dissolved in the oceans in the form of CO2 and carbonic acid, bicarbonate and carbonate ions as exists in the atmosphere. The oceans act as an enormous carbon sink, and have taken up about a third of CO2 emitted by human activity.[28] Gas solubility decreases as the temperature of water increases and therefore the rate of uptake from the atmosphere decreases as ocean temperatures rise.

Most of the CO2 taken up by the ocean forms carbonic acid in equilibrium with bicarbonate and carbonate ions. Some is consumed in photosynthesis by organisms in the water, and a small proportion of that sinks and leaves the carbon cycle. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere has led to decreasing alkalinity of seawater and there is concern that this may adversely affect organisms living in the water. In particular, with decreasing alkalinity, the availability of carbonates for forming shells decreases.[29]

NOAA states in their May 2008 "State of the science fact sheet for ocean acidification" that:
"The oceans have absorbed about 50% of the carbon dioxide (CO2) released from the burning of fossil fuels, resulting in chemical reactions that lower ocean pH. This has caused an increase in hydrogen ion (acidity) of about 30% since the start of the industrial age through a process known as “ocean acidification.” A growing number of studies have demonstrated adverse impacts on marine organisms, including:

The rate at which reef-building corals produce their skeletons decreases.
The ability of marine algae and free-swimming zooplankton to maintain protective shells is reduced.
The survival of larval marine species, including commercial fish and shellfish, is reduced."
Also, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) writes in their Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report [30]:
"The uptake of anthropogenic carbon since 1750 has led to the ocean becoming more acidic with an average decrease in pH of 0.1 units. Increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations lead to further acidification .. While the effects of observed ocean acidification on the marine biosphere are as yet undocumented, the progressive acidification of oceans is expected to have negative impacts on marine shell-forming organisms (e.g. corals) and their dependent species."

IPCC also includes in its last report that with a probability greater than 0.66: "the resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded in this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. landuse change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, overexploitation of resources)."

Some marine calcifying organisms (like coral reefs) have been singled out by major research agencies, including NOAA, OSPAR commission, NANOOS and the IPCC, because their most current research shows that ocean acidification should be expected to impact them negatively.[31]

Thanks for making my point for me. In fact I said the exact same thing using slightly different words, didn't I? They don't have ice core data prior to 800,000 years ago because there was no ice more than 800,000 years ago. The Earth has had ice ages. The Earth has had warm periods that completely melted the ice caps. So, acknowledging this reality, can you tell me, out of all the hundreds of millions of years that global climate has been fluctuating up and down, how is it that THIS time it is the fault of human activity instead of one more of thousands of natural fluctuations which have been observed in the data available from analysis of ice cores, fossilized plants, and geological structures?

Sure. If you had bothered to read all my posts? You would see that my theory of ice ages involve celestial events like a distant super nova.

If this is the case today? You can kiss the world as you know it today goodbye.All scientists with scientific data say that pollution from burning fossil fuels is the cause of GW and I find this logical.

It's a fucking scare tactic to get mindless dweebs to accept the idea of paying governments around the world trillions of dollars in taxes and carbon fees over the next few decades, not to mention that certain political factions world wide are slavering at the idea of having an excuse to gain governmental control of energy production. To the people pushing this idea it means vast amounts of money, and vast amounts of power. To the scientists pushing the idea it means millions in government sponsored research grants. Follow the money.

The only mindless dweebs I see are the ones following the scientists that are backed by their own opinions, faulty conclusions and no real science to back it up. More than likely paid off by big business as I have already prooved.

Now it MAY be true that the powers that be are show boating. This I wont deny. They always huff and puff and argue but nothing hardly gets done.
This reminds me of the climate summit and the health care reform in America just to name 2.

This is to fool the people when their intentions really are to keep the profits flowing.So they can take the money and say they spent it on GW when they actually didn't.

Though this doesn't change the fact that HUMANS are causing GW and if something is not done, the consequences may be severe. We will soon see if the money was indeed being spent where it is supposed to have been spent.

The thing is, I am fully and completely behind the idea of vastly reducing our use of petroleum as an energy source due to the polluting aspects of petroleum that have nothing at all to do with release of GHGs. I am opposed to the continued indiscriminate cutting of tropical forests. But the whole AGW scare is exactly that: a ruse to scare people into accepting things they would otherwise not accept from our respective governments.

All burning fossil fuels period. Most deforestation that is not balanced(trees replanted) is bad.

The AGW scare is very real. If we do not do something to stop this deterioration of our enviornment? The consequences wil be severe, many will die.....

Who cares how many agree? The science is shaky because it is founded on shaky assumptions. Assumption #1, the biggest, fattest assumption of them all, is using the correlation between CO2 concentrations and mean global temperatures to form a cause/effect relationship with CO2 being a driver of mean atmospheric warming. But the data and additional experiments do not support that base assumption for the reasons I have already outlined. With the assumption that CO2/temperature correlation indicates a cause/effect relationship gone, all the rest of AGW falls apart.

When you have the majority of the best minds agreeing on something? It is usually either 100% true or they are on the right track.

I disagree. The data and additional information you provided is misleading and classified under mis-information. And I have already explained why.

The correlation does exist between the human carbon footprint and the increase in temperature. CO2 plays a VERY large role in traping heat in our atmosphere. And toxins from buring fossil fuels plays an even larger role. You have the petrolium industry themselves agreeing.

Defending a scientific concept on the basis of how many agree with it is the ultimate in bullshit science. There was a time almost every scientist in the world agreed that heavier-than-air transport was an impractical idea that would never fly. (excuse the pun.) There was a time when almost every scientist scoffed at the idea that having doctors simply wash their hands between patients would reduce infections in hospitals. There was a time, quite recently, when the scientific consensus supported a food pyramid that had a severe imbalance in the amount of carbohydrates recommended. It took "crazies" like Robert Atkins and Arthur Agatston to push through the consensus amid vast amounts of ridicule and opposition. The result is a vastly changed food "pyramid" adjusted after much resistance to reflect the new science. So don't bother pulling the "almost everyone agrees" crap. Scientists are every bit as prone to factors such as peer pressure, political atmosphere, and personal ego as anyone else. They are also every bit as prone to being wrong as anyone else, and equally prone to refusing to admit it.

These were people baseing their beliefs on nothing more than opinion. They had no actual science or ways to verify their beliefs. Today we do through many things like satellites, microscopes, and various high tech measuring instruments.

The thing with science is the more FACTS you varify? The more evolved the science and the thinking behind it becomes.


Now I do believe that if people are told a lie over and over they will percieve it as the truth and this is what impedes progress. THOUGH the GW facts are based on SCIENCE/PROOF that GW is caused by man. It is the sceptics that have B.S. data supported by nothing. Only their opinion, that even I have been able to discredit.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

The thing with science is the more FACTS you varify? The more evolved the science and the thinking behind it becomes..

How does verification of facts lead to "more evolved science and the thinking behind it"? Verification is just a double check.

And we can't even do that because the scientists destroyed the real data because it didn't actually suppor the AGW theory. The climategate emails prove my case.

 

[wiseones2cents]

How does verification of facts lead to "more evolved science and the thinking behind it"? Verification is just a double check.

And we can't even do that because the scientists destroyed the real data because it didn't actually suppor the AGW theory. The climategate emails prove my case.

Simple. The more acurate the information you are building upon,the faster the progress since, errors in theories always lead to dead ends.

verification, verifies the facts as accurate.

Sorry but ALL evidence I have submitted? Clearly state that the science DOES support the fact that human carbon footprints are either the main cause or a great contributer to GW.

Therefore I believe that this climategate scandal is a setup.

They manipulated the data on purpose, then tried to destroy the data on purpose, and then convieniently outed the info right before a huge climate summit.

Sorry. Doesn't add up.

This was clearly designed to feed the anti-warmers some ammo and deter progress and give the polluters the green light to continue to pollute. Its all about profits. These people know the dangers but they figure they'll be long gone before the side effects, but they are mistaken.

Any one with a half a brain understands that these pollutants are toxic. Go take a drag from a factory chimney. And this stuff doesn't disappear. It remains in the enviornment and is bad. Eventually it makes it into our systems. Either through the food we eat or the water we drink or the air we breath.

Even respiratory problems are on the rise.......

 

[Good Luck]

The carbon footprint they are reffering to is carbon caused by man AKA pollution. And this IS the main focus, and deforestation.

Well, DUH! What do you think I am referring to by "carbon footprint"? The carbon footprint of elephant farts?

No, what is stupid is that the fines are sometimes smaller than the profits accumulated by polluting. Therefore the company just continues to pollute and they never get shut down.

What is assinine beyond reality is calling CO2 a pollutant.

Did you know you can develop film in lake Ontario thanks to Kodak? Thank GOD for the digital camera.

Whats stupid is allowing these people to pollute unrestrained.

A completely different kind of pollution. Do try to keep to the topic, huh? Or are you preparing this as the typical "if you don't blindly agree with all of our beliefs, you are for pollution." crapo I see from so many others? Tiresome, as well as completely undermining the rest of your argument.

I agree that alternative energies is the best option but until then? Technology to reduce pollution is the quick fix answer.

Which is actually a close approximation of my central point, if you were so committed to the blind assertion that CO2 is to be lumped in with all pollutants. There are viable alternatives to the use of petroleum, with all of its pollution concerns that do NOT include CO2. One instance is the liquifaction of coal to produce diesel fuel. We have enormous reserves of coal. We burn it straight out of the ground, which is the dirtiest way of using coal in terms of non-CO2 pollutants. However, liquifying coal into diesel provides a fuel that burns much cleaner than petroleum derived diesel fuels because the liquifaction process also removes most of the pollutants. Dieasel fuel is the central fuel of our transport industries, which is, in turn, the largest consumer of petroleum. Putting the transport industry on a fuel we can make ourselves instead of import would go a long way toward getting us off foreign oil depenency. It would be a perfect stop gap in a move toward energy independence, which is an essential step in getting rid of oil entirely. The only problem with coal liquifaction is it does nothing about our CO2 footprint. It redduces all pollutants, but generates as much CO2, and is therefore not an acceptable solution to the AGW morons.

Because it balances itseelf out due to the amount of oxygen. Though what happens if that balance is disturbed? CH4 is just one of the pollutants.

If you cannot understand the study I referenced, just say so. The study determined whether air with CO2 and CH4 in a range of low concentrations (250-360 ppmv and 1500-1750 ppbv respectively) actually demonstrate a difference in greenhouse effect. (ie: heat retention) The data that resulted from the experiments was unable to find any difference. The math is a quantum physics analysis that basically shows that in low concentrations the heat retention properties of CO2 and CH4 are insufficient because there are too few CO2 or CH4 molecules in a representative sample of air. The energy from a CO2 or CH4 molecule is so likely to transfer itself in a few milliseconds to another molecule that have lower heat retention properties that the few moments extra the CO2 or CH4 molecule hangs onto the energy (heat) is not significant enough to cause a macro change in the air sample's mean temperature.

CO2 makes up ALOT less than 1% of the Atmosphere yet plays a major role in our enviornment.

Yes, CO2 is important to the environment. Without CO2 photosynthesis could not take place. But according to scientific studies, CO2 in the concentrations found in the atmosphere INCLUDING human sources, is not a driver in atmospheric temperatures. Want to refute that, find a study that actually measures a difference in the heat retention of air at current CO2 concentrations.

Additionally, good old water vapor has 20 times the heat retention factor as CH4. Are you going to start calling water vapor a GW pollutant?

No. It is organic. I believe the other ones emit radiation.

LOL Now you are simply parading your profound ignorance in the very science you are trying to discuss. Proof positive you are only parroting what your liberal masters are telling you to believe.

Heat retention is a property of all matter. Each atom and each molecule has a unique value which is dependent on the structure of the outer electron shells. The water molecule has a heat retention value 20 times that of the CO2 molecule. Water is also found in much higher concentrations in the atmosphere. Water vapor has a REAL greenhouse effect which is measurable, unlike the greenhouse effect of CO2 at low concentrations. The heat retention of water vapor is why it stays warmer during a cloudy night than a clear night. It's why deserts which reach over 100 degrees during the day can cool off to below freezing at night - no water vapor to keep the heat in.

I have heard that the oceans produce most of the oxygen and it makes sense.
THOUGH the ocean converts ONLY ONE THIRD of the CO2. Therefore trees play a significant role.

And once more you parade your ignorance in the science you are attempting to discuss.

For a photosynthetic plant to release oxygen, it must take in CO2. It's a relatively simple equation. CO2 + H2O yields C6H12O + O2 It is the same formula whether phytoplankton is doing it, or a tree. Since the oceans do over 90% of the conversion (with 3% attributed to tropical forests, and 7% for the rest of the land masses), they BOTH release 90% of photosynthetic oxygen AND take in 90% of CO2 in the carbon cycle. The claim that oceans produce the majority of oxygen from photosynthesis, but only take in 1/3 the CO2 is either profound ignorance(ie: trying to directly compare two different items, CO2 in the carbon cycle, and CO2 held in aqueous solution), or an outright lie.

And as the ocean heats up, more oxygen is released but its ability to absorb CO2 from the air decreases.

I strongly suggest you simply give up trying to discuss the science behind AGW "theory". You clearly do not know shit from apple butter when it comes to the basics of physics and chemistry.

The ability of water to hold gasses in solution is varied according to temperature. That goes for ALL gasses, including both O2 and CO2. As water warms, it will release dissolved gasses. That also includes both CO2 and O2. But thanks for pointing out that we have a perfectly sound explanation for the vast majority of the obserrved increase in atmospheric CO2, that involves the anti-AGW principle that warming occurs first, and CO2 increases afterward - a principle that, unlike AGW claims, actually matched the observed data.

Not to mention what bad effects the pollutants have to ocean life.

Here is some interesting read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

And yet another wiki article. Clue: Wiki is written by laypersons. And while few articles are deliberately misleading, not many that describe scientific principles are entirely accurate, either. The article you reference cannot even keep its numbers straight. In one sentence it states that about 1/3 of human sourced CO2 is absorbed by the oceans, then not long after, references a NOAA study that states about 1/2 of human derived CO2 is absorbed by the oceans. I am supposed to take credence in an article that can't even be internally consistent?

Also, (as is typical of the AGW crowd) the hoopla about increased carbolic acids being detrimental to sea life is not borne out by paleontological studies that show corals and other marine life flourished above and beyond what we see today under conditions of warmer waters and VASTLY higher atmospheric and aqueous CO2 concentrations. In fact ocean life in general, and corals specifically fell off with the beginning of the ice ages and have fluctuated with the rest of the world, UPWARD during warmer periods, and downward during colder periods.

The only mindless dweebs I see are the ones following the scientists that are backed by their own opinions, faulty conclusions and no real science to back it up.

Been looking in the mirror, have you?

More than likely paid off by big business as I have already prooved.

You have not proven (proved? LOL) anything. Both major studies I have referenced for you which discuss CO2 forcing (you know, actual scientific studies, as opposed to articles about reports about the conclusions of a study that you like to use) had nothing to do with big business.

Now it MAY be true that the powers that be are show boating. This I wont deny. They always huff and puff and argue but nothing hardly gets done.
This reminds me of the climate summit and the health care reform in America just to name 2.

This is to fool the people when their intentions really are to keep the profits flowing.So they can take the money and say they spent it on GW when they actually didn't.

Getting closer to reality here. Now all you have to do is recognize that both historically and under current circumstances the so-called crisis is at best vastly overstated, and at worst completely manufactured to excuse actions of peoples' respective governments that (at least in the democratic derived government) they would otherwise not tolerate. Health care problems are vastly overstated - especially the estimates of people without any health insurance. They over state it to excuse a plan that leads to complete government take over while assuring increased profits for the big insurance carriers.

And AGW is completely manufactured out of unsupported speculation.

Though this doesn't change the fact that HUMANS are causing GW and if something is not done, the consequences may be severe. We will soon see if the money was indeed being spent where it is supposed to have been spent.

AGW is not by any means proven, therefore it is not a fact. If you think it has been proven to the point of accepting it as fact, then it only shows you arfe incapable of anything even remotely approaching critical thought. (But then your demonstrated complete ignorance of the science involved has already proven that.)

All burning fossil fuels period. Most deforestation that is not balanced(trees replanted) is bad.

And once again, demonstration of a complete lack in critical thinking. Also demonstrates why people like you are far more dangerous to the stability of our society than GW will ever be.

The AGW scare is very real.

Well, I do not doubt your fear. People are quite commonly fearful of what they cannot understand.

If we do not do something to stop this deterioration of our enviornment? The consequences wil be severe, many will die.....

If talking about REAL pollutions, yes, something needs to be done. (or more needs to be done, since something is being done in many countries including ours) If talking about CO2, bullshit. There is still no proof, nor even acceptable evidence, that we are seeing anything more than one of many thousands natural fluctuations the Earth has been displaying since long before the dinosaurs, let alone human kind. Following your ideas, severely limiting our options because of your mindless fears, will end up harming far more people than simply preparing for what the Earth is going to do anyway.

When you have the majority of the best minds agreeing on something? It is usually either 100% true or they are on the right track.

Like when the majority of the "best minds" agreed that there were four elements: fire, water, earth and air? Or maybe when the majority of the best minds agreed the world was flat? I already gave you other examples. Concensus does not make good science.

I disagree. The data and additional information you provided is misleading and classified under mis-information. And I have already explained why.

LOL Classified by whom? I referenced actual scientific studies. Are you claiming they used falsified data? Where is your evidence that the studies I referenced are in any way "mis-information". You are so full of shit your eyes are brown. It is very easy to simply classify anything that does not meet your preconceptions as "mis-information". I base my opinion on AGW on the actual scientific studies. The advantage of going to the studies is they include the data as well as the methods used to analyze the data, and state the hypothesis being tested by the study. In short, I study the science behind the political claims.

You counter with wiki and lay magazine articles which do not report the actual data from the studies. What you reference do not even quote anything from the abstract of an actual study. What they do provide is a reporter's interpretation of what they decided to write from their "investigation" of the topic. But my references are "mis-information"? What a fucking droob you are.

The correlation does exist between the human carbon footprint and the increase in temperature. CO2 plays a VERY large role in traping heat in our atmosphere. And toxins from buring fossil fuels plays an even larger role. You have the petrolium industry themselves agreeing.

Wrong on every statement in this paragraph. First, the only correlation that has been established is between CO2 concentrations and mean global temperatures. And that correlation falls apart when going back more than 2 million years.

Second, CO2 does NOT play a large role in trapping heat in our atmosphere. That culprit is water vapor. No study done to date can show a measurable difference in heat retention between air at 275 ppmv CO2 and air at 360 ppmv CO2. If such a study has been done, reference it. I am tired of people hauling out stupid fucking articles that make the claim without any supporting science. Find the STUDY - the actual scientific paper outlining the actual scientific experiment, complete with hypothesis being tested, raw data, analysis method, andd conclusion - that shows greater heat retention in air at 360 ppmv CO2, and air at 250 ppmv CO2. I have shown you an actual scientific study, complete with hypothesis being tested, raw data, analysis method, and conclusions that shows there is NO difference. Unless you can counter that with actual scientific evidence, you are blowing hot air as supplied you by your political masters. (maybe THAT is the human source of GW: liberal hot air blowing around.)

There was a time almost every scientist in the world agreed that heavier-than-air transport was an impractical idea that would never fly. (excuse the pun.) There was a time when almost every scientist scoffed at the idea that having doctors simply wash their hands between patients would reduce infections in hospitals. There was a time, quite recently, when the scientific consensus supported a food pyramid that had a severe imbalance in the amount of carbohydrates recommended. It took "crazies" like Robert Atkins and Arthur Agatston to push through the consensus amid vast amounts of ridicule and opposition. The result is a vastly changed food "pyramid" adjusted after much resistance to reflect the new science. So don't bother pulling the "almost everyone agrees" crap. Scientists are every bit as prone to factors such as peer pressure, political atmosphere, and personal ego as anyone else. They are also every bit as prone to being wrong as anyone else, and equally prone to refusing to admit it.

These were people baseing their beliefs on nothing more than opinion. They had no actual science or ways to verify their beliefs. Today we do through many things like satellites, microscopes, and various high tech measuring instruments.

Wrong again, as is your habit. They were scientists who were basing their claims on the results of scientific investigation and knowledge of the times. And that's how science always is. Conclusions are based on accepted knowledge of the times. Then along comes some new idea/concept/theory, and the almost inevitable result is a fight between the new ideas and the majority of the science community that does not want to let go of their paradigm. And this goes on until the supportive evidence supporting the new theory becomes too large to deny. Then and only then is the new data accepted.

The food pyramid is the perfect example of this. This is a modern example, so we do not have to adjust for differences in base scientific knowledge. The food pyramid was based on many, many studies on human health and nutrition. You can still reference those studies. The pyramid, and the ideas behind it, were the result of conclusions based on research, and were supported almost 100% by the scientific community. And, as it turns out, it was WRONG. It promoted over consumption of carbohydrates, and as such actually helped contribute to obesity. It took a couple of rogues with new data bassed on new studies, who were also stubborn enough to face down the criticism of the consensus, to find the flaw, point it out, and force a change.

So much for consensus science.

The thing with science is the more FACTS you varify? The more evolved the science and the thinking behind it becomes.

And the corollary is the more established (verified) a body of science is, the more difficult it is to advance in a new direction, regardless of how valid the new direction is. Consensus actually tends to work more against the scientific method than with it.

Now I do believe that if people are told a lie over and over they will percieve it as the truth and this is what impedes progress. THOUGH the GW facts are based on SCIENCE/PROOF that GW is caused by man. It is the sceptics that have B.S. data supported by nothing. Only their opinion, that even I have been able to discredit.

You got the right idea. Unfortunately you are choosing the lies to believe, and calling them the facts. You have done NOTHING to actually support your claims. Your references are all articles written by lay people describing the conclusions as stated by AGW proponents. You are handed references to actual scientific studies, and you dismiss them as opinion. In short, you are the one you are describing as repeating lies and ignoring genuine science in favor of your preconceptions. And the REAL problem with that is where you derive your preconceptions - written for you by the DNC.

Tell me, honestly, would you be such a proponent of the whole AGW/let's reduce our carbon footprint if it were the republicans behind the idea? Frankly, I think you'd be denying AGW as a conservative lie regardless of whether you had actual evidence of a lie (Leaving out contrary data? Eliminating data sets so they cannot be verified?) or not.

 

[cancel2 2022]

No, just one Russian tree.

Russian trees are renowned, in the world of trees, for being manifestly evil.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Simple. The more acurate the information you are building upon,the faster the progress since, errors in theories always lead to dead ends.

verification, verifies the facts as accurate.

Sorry but ALL evidence I have submitted? Clearly state that the science DOES support the fact that human carbon footprints are either the main cause or a great contributer to GW.

Therefore I believe that this climategate scandal is a setup.

They manipulated the data on purpose, then tried to destroy the data on purpose, and then convieniently outed the info right before a huge climate summit.

Sorry. Doesn't add up.

This was clearly designed to feed the anti-warmers some ammo and deter progress and give the polluters the green light to continue to pollute. Its all about profits. These people know the dangers but they figure they'll be long gone before the side effects, but they are mistaken.

Any one with a half a brain understands that these pollutants are toxic. Go take a drag from a factory chimney. And this stuff doesn't disappear. It remains in the enviornment and is bad. Eventually it makes it into our systems. Either through the food we eat or the water we drink or the air we breath.

Even respiratory problems are on the rise.......

It totally adds up. They were doing bad science to justify a statist power grab.

And verification is still just verification.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Well, DUH! What do you think I am referring to by "carbon footprint"? The carbon footprint of elephant farts?


What is assinine beyond reality is calling CO2 a pollutant.


A completely different kind of pollution. Do try to keep to the topic, huh? Or are you preparing this as the typical "if you don't blindly agree with all of our beliefs, you are for pollution." crapo I see from so many others? Tiresome, as well as completely undermining the rest of your argument.


Which is actually a close approximation of my central point, if you were so committed to the blind assertion that CO2 is to be lumped in with all pollutants. There are viable alternatives to the use of petroleum, with all of its pollution concerns that do NOT include CO2. One instance is the liquifaction of coal to produce diesel fuel. We have enormous reserves of coal. We burn it straight out of the ground, which is the dirtiest way of using coal in terms of non-CO2 pollutants. However, liquifying coal into diesel provides a fuel that burns much cleaner than petroleum derived diesel fuels because the liquifaction process also removes most of the pollutants. Dieasel fuel is the central fuel of our transport industries, which is, in turn, the largest consumer of petroleum. Putting the transport industry on a fuel we can make ourselves instead of import would go a long way toward getting us off foreign oil depenency. It would be a perfect stop gap in a move toward energy independence, which is an essential step in getting rid of oil entirely. The only problem with coal liquifaction is it does nothing about our CO2 footprint. It redduces all pollutants, but generates as much CO2, and is therefore not an acceptable solution to the AGW morons.




If you cannot understand the study I referenced, just say so. The study determined whether air with CO2 and CH4 in a range of low concentrations (250-360 ppmv and 1500-1750 ppbv respectively) actually demonstrate a difference in greenhouse effect. (ie: heat retention) The data that resulted from the experiments was unable to find any difference. The math is a quantum physics analysis that basically shows that in low concentrations the heat retention properties of CO2 and CH4 are insufficient because there are too few CO2 or CH4 molecules in a representative sample of air. The energy from a CO2 or CH4 molecule is so likely to transfer itself in a few milliseconds to another molecule that does not have heat retention properties that the few moments extra the CO2 or CH4 molecule hangs onto the energy (heat) is not significant enough to cause a macro change in the air sample's mean temperature.


Yes, CO2 is important to the environment. Without CO2 photosynthesis could not take place. But according to scientific studies, CO2 in the concentrations found in the atmosphere INCLUDING human sources, is not a driver in atmospheric temperatures. Want to refute that, find a study that actually measures a difference in the heat retention of air at current CO2 concentrations.



LOL Now you are simply parading your profound ignorance in the very science you are trying to discuss. Proof positive you are only parroting what your liberal masters are telling you to believe.

Heat retention is a property of all matter. Each atom and each molecule has a unique value which is dependent on the structure of the outer electron shells. The water molecule has a heat retention value 20 times that of the CO2 molecule. Water is also found in much higher concentrations in the atmosphere. Water vapor has a REAL greenhouse effect which is measurable, unlike the greenhouse effect of CO2 at low concentrations. The heat retention of water vapor is why it stays warmer during a cloudy night than a clear night. It's why deserts which reach over 100 degrees during the day can cool off to below freezing at night - no water vapor to keep the heat in.




And once more you parade your ignorance in the science you are attempting to discuss.

For a photosynthetic plant to release oxygen, it must take in CO2. It's a relatively simple equation. CO2 + H2O yields C6H12O + O2 It is the same formula whether phytoplankton is doing it, or a tree. Since the oceans do over 90% of the conversion (with 3% attributed to tropical forests, and 7% for the rest of the land masses), they BOTH release 90% of photosynthetic oxygen AND take in 90% of CO2 in the carbon cycle. The claim that oceans produce the majority of oxygen from photosynthesis, but only take in 1/3 the CO2 is either profound ignorance, or an outright lie.



I strongly suggest you simply give up trying to discuss the science behind AGW "theory". You clearly do not know shit from apple butter when it comes to the basics of physics and chemistry.

The ability of water to hold gasses in solution is varied according to temperature. That goes for ALL gasses, including both O2 and CO2. As water warms, it will release dissolved gasses. That also includes both CO2 and O2. But thanks for pointing out that we have a perfectly sound explanation for the vast majority of the obserrved increase in atmospheric CO2, that involves the anti-AGW principle that warming occurs first, and CO2 increases afterward - a principle that, unlike AGW claims, actually matched the observed data.



And yet another wiki article. Clue: Wiki is written by laypersons. And while few articles are deliberately misleading, not many that describe scientific principles are entirely accurate, either. The article you reference cannot even keep its numbers straight. In one sentence it states that about 1/3 of human sourced CO2 is absorbed by the oceans, then not long after, references a NOAA study that states about 1/2 of human derived CO2 is absorbed by the oceans. I am supposed to take credence in an article that can't even be internally consistent?

Also, (as is typical of the AGW crowd) the hoopla about increased carbolic acids being detrimental to sea life is not borne out by paleontological studies that show corals and other marine life flourished above and beyond what we see today under conditions of warmer waters and VASTLY higher atmospheric and aqueous CO2 concentrations. In fact ocean life in general, and corals specifically fell off with the beginning of the ice ages and have fluctuated with the rest of the world, UPWARD during warmer periods, and downward during colder periods.


Been looking in the mirror, have you?


You have not proven (proved? LOL) anything. Both major studies I have referenced for you which discuss CO2 forcing (you know, actual scientific studies, as opposed to articles about reports about the conclusions of a study that you like to use) had nothing to do with big business.



Getting closer to reality here. Now all you have to do is recognize that both historically and under current circumstances the so-called crisis is at best vastly overstated, and at worst completely manufactured to excuse actions of peoples' respective governments that (at least in the democratic derived government) they would otherwise not tolerate. Health care problems are vastly overstated - especially the estimates of people without any health insurance. They over state it to excuse a plan that leads to complete government take over while assuring increased profits for the big insurance carriers.

And AGW is completely manufactured out of unsupported speculation.


AGW is not by any means proven, therefore it is not a fact. If you think it has been proven to the point of accepting it as fact, then it only shows you arfe incapable of anything even remotely approaching critical thought. (But then your demonstrated complete ignorance of the science involved has already proven that.)




And once again, demonstration of a complete lack in critical thinking. Also demonstrates why people like you are far more dangerous to the stability of our society than GW will ever be.


Well, I do not doubt your fear. People are quite commonly fearful of what they cannot understand.


If talking about REAL pollutions, yes, something needs to be done. (or more needs to be done, since something is being done in many countries including ours) If talking about CO2, bullshit. There is still no proof, nor even acceptable evidence, that we are seeing anything more than one of many thousands natural fluctuations the Earth has been displaying since long before the dinosaurs, let alone human kind. Following your ideas, severely limiting our options because of your mindless fears, will end up harming far more people than simply preparing for what the Earth is going to do anyway.



Like when the majority of the "best minds" agreed that there were four elements: fire, water, earth and air? Or maybe when the majority of the best minds agreed the world was flat? I already gave you other examples. Concensus does not make good science.


LOL Classified by whom? I referenced actual scientific studies. Are you claiming they used falsified data? Where is your evidence that the studies I referenced are in any way "mis-information". You are so full of shit your eyes are brown. It is very easy to simply classify anything that does not meet your preconceptions as "mis-information". I base my opinion on AGW on the actual scientific studies. The advantage of going to the studies is they include the data as well as the methods used to analyze the data, and state the hypothesis being tested by the study. In short, I study the science behind the political claims.

You counter with wiki and lay magazine articles which do not report the actual data from the studies. What you reference do not even quote anything from the abstract of an actual study. What they do provide is a reporter's interpretation of what they decided to write from their "investigation" of the topic. But my references are "mis-information"? What a fucking droob you are.



Wrong on every statement in this paragraph. First, the only correlation that has been established is between CO2 concentrations and mean global temperatures. And that correlation falls apart when going back more than 2 million years.

Second, CO2 does NOT play a large role in trapping heat in our atmosphere. That culprit is water vapor. No study done to date can show a measurable difference in heat retention between air at 275 ppmv CO2 and air at 360 ppmv CO2. If such a study has been done, reference it. I am tired of people hauling out stupid fucking articles that make the claim without any supporting science. Find the STUDY - the actual scientific paper outlining the actual scientific experiment, complete with hypothesis being tested, raw data, analysis method, andd conclusion - that shows greater heat retention in air at 360 ppmv CO2, and air at 250 ppmv CO2. I have shown you an actual scientific study, complete with hypothesis being tested, raw data, analysis method, and conclusions that shows there is NO difference. Unless you can counter that with actual scientific evidence, you are blowing hot air as supplied you by your political masters. (maybe THAT is the human source of GW: liberal hot air blowing around.)



Wrong again, as is your habit. They were scientists who were basing their claims on the results of scientific investigation and knowledge of the times. And that's how science always is. Conclusions are based on accepted knowledge of the times. Then along comes some new idea/concept/theory, and the almost inevitable result is a fight between the new ideas and the majority of the science community that does not want to let go of their paradigm. And this goes on until the supportive evidence supporting the new theory becomes too large to deny. Then and only then is the new data accepted.

The food pyramid is the perfect example of this. This is a modern example, so we do not have to adjust for differences in base scientific knowledge. The food pyramid was based on many, many studies on human health and nutrition. You can still reference those studies. The pyramid, and the ideas behind it, were the result of conclusions based on research, and were supported almost 100% by the scientific community. And, as it turns out, it was WRONG. It promoted over consumption of carbohydrates, and as such actually helped contribute to obesity. It took a couple of rogues with new data bassed on new studies, who were also stubborn enough to face down the criticism of the consensus, to find the flaw, point it out, and force a change.

So much for consensus science.



And the corollary is the more established (verified) a body of science is, the more difficult it is to advance in a new direction, regardless of how valid the new direction is. Consensus actually tends to work more against the scientific method than with it.



You got the right idea. Unfortunately you are choosing the lies to believe, and calling them the facts. You have done NOTHING to actually support your claims. Your references are all articles written by lay people describing the conclusions as stated by AGW proponents. You are handed references to actual scientific studies, and you dismiss them as opinion. In short, you are the one you are describing as repeating lies and ignoring genuine science in favor of your preconceptions. And the REAL problem with that is where you derive your preconceptions - written for you by the DNC.

Tell me, honestly, would you be such a proponent of the whole AGW/let's reduce our carbon footprint if it were the republicans behind the idea? Frankly, I think you'd be denying AGW as a conservative lie regardless of whether you had actual evidence of a lie (Leaving out contrary data? Eliminating data sets so they cannot be verified?) or not.

Man, you do like a good rant. However if you are going to be all holier than thou it would be a good idea to find out the difference between carbolic and carbonic acids. I am conjuring up an image of the world's oceans being polluted by phenol.

 

[tinfoil]

It totally adds up. They were doing bad science to justify a statist power grab.

And verification is still just verification.

don't worry, the slow kids in class will need more time to understand how tree ring data that didn't show enough warming (during this record warm weather we've had in the last couple decades) to agree with assumptions about temps in the past which lead to REAL temps being substituted instead.


It's very hard to make people understand implications of this. Especially the religious ones like crypiss and evince.

At least Lorax recognized how the data that could not be used to verify the temps of today, can not be used to verify the temps in the past with any kind of accuracy approaching the 90% level of confidence that was advertised.

The statistical errors are gross.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

don't worry, the slow kids in class will need more time to understand how tree ring data that didn't show enough warming (during this record warm weather we've had in the last couple decades) to agree with assumptions about temps in the past which lead to REAL temps being substituted instead.


It's very hard to make people understand implications of this. Especially the religious ones like crypiss and evince.

At least Lorax recognized how the data that could not be used to verify the temps of today, can not be used to verify the temps in the past with any kind of accuracy approaching the 90% level of confidence that was advertised.

The statistical errors are gross.

Indeed, and it is not just in the temperature speculations, it is the whole concept of carbon dioxide created by industrialization of man, having any effect on the planet or climate. We observe a slightly higher lever of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and we understand it is part of the greenhouse system, but is this a cause or effect of increases (or decreases) in average temperatures? Do the normal cyclical patterns of Earth, actually cause amplification of the greenhouse process? Is what the eco-radicals claim is 'man-made global warming' really just part of Earth's normal cycles?

These questions can now be explored, and we can get to the bottom of this. I happen to believe a rise in carbon dioxide is not a bad thing for Earth! We know when the dinosaurs roamed the planet, the atmosphere had about 5x more carbon dioxide. Any botanical scientist can tell you, plant life emerged and evolved in a much higher concentration of carbon dioxide, and CO2 is tremendously beneficial to all plant growth. Nurseries routinely pump CO2 into their greenhouses, to produce a much richer, healthier, abundant plant. Just a 1~2% increase in CO2, increases plant cell production by 200%, and helps to retain water 300% longer. One benefit to increased CO2 in the atmosphere, is increased ability to grow plants in arid places. The potential for feeding the world population, will be incredible.

 

[Good Luck]

Man, you do like a good rant. However if you are going to be all holier than thou it would be a good idea to find out the difference between carbolic and carbonic acids. I am conjuring up an image of the world's oceans being polluted by phenol.

I never mentioned either one, so what leads you to the implication I do not know the difference?

Carbolic acid is a man made toxin used in many plastics and household lubricants. It has nothing to do with global warming, atmospheric CO2, or anything else being discussed other than the already agreed principle that pollutants in general (excluding the ridiculous notion that CO2 is a pollutant) need to be brought under more control than is evidenced by the minimal laws currently in place. Otherwise, it's a side topic.

Carbonic acid is the result of CO2 dissolved in water. Higher concentrations of CO2 in solution means more acidic water. Some want us to be concerned about it because higher partial pressures of CO2 that result from higher atmospheric concentrations can force more CO2 into solution, despite the general principle that warmer water can hold fewer gasses in solution. But since paleontological data indicates coral and other sea life actually thrived in conditions even more extreme than those we are being warned about, the obvious conclusion is the warnings of dire consequences are ill founded.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I never mentioned either one, so what leads you to the implication I do not know the difference?

Carbolic acid is a man made toxin used in many plastics and household lubricants. It has nothing to do with global warming, atmospheric CO2, or anything else being discussed other than the already agreed principle that pollutants in general (excluding the ridiculous notion that CO2 is a pollutant) need to be brought under more control than is evidenced by the minimal laws currently in place. Otherwise, it's a side topic.

Carbonic acid is the result of CO2 dissolved in water. Higher concentrations of CO2 in solution means more acidic water. Some want us to be concerned about it because higher partial pressures of CO2 that result from higher atmospheric concentrations can force more CO2 into solution, despite the general principle that warmer water can hold fewer gasses in solution. But since paleontological data indicates coral and other sea life actually thrived in conditions even more extreme than those we are being warned about, the obvious conclusion is the warnings of dire consequences are ill founded.

I"ve finally figured it out.

The warmers actually believe that WATERWORLD WAS a documentary sent back from the future.

 

[Damocles]

Russian trees are renowned, in the world of trees, for being manifestly evil.

Especially that one... he's a real booger.

 

[wiseones2cents]

It totally adds up. They were doing bad science to justify a statist power grab.

And verification is still just verification.

Nope. The majority of the hard facts say GW is real. All you have is the email and a handfull of scientists backed only by their opinion and theories not backed with science.

 

[wiseones2cents]

Well, DUH! What do you think I am referring to by "carbon footprint"? The carbon footprint of elephant farts?

OK. I'll try to explain it one last time. They are reffering to all the greenhouse gases including the pollutants when they speak of carbon footprint.

What is assinine beyond reality is calling CO2 a pollutant.

Actually carbon dioxide is toxic to humans.. We breathe it out, we dont breath it in. If we breathed in enough we would die.But we are talking pollution, we are talking about the greenhouse gases produced by the burning of fossil fuels. Yet you always go back to CO2.

You seem to be obssessed with CO2(since it is the only leg you have to stand on and I will take care of that soon). I will address this later on in the debate.

A completely different kind of pollution. Do try to keep to the topic, huh? Or are you preparing this as the typical "if you don't blindly agree with all of our beliefs, you are for pollution." crapo I see from so many others? Tiresome, as well as completely undermining the rest of your argument.

Nope I am talking about pollutants from burning fossil fuels and the effects but I will now only confine myargument tol stircktly CO2.

Which is actually a close approximation of my central point, if you were so committed to the blind assertion that CO2 is to be lumped in with all pollutants. There are viable alternatives to the use of petroleum, with all of its pollution concerns that do NOT include CO2. One instance is the liquifaction of coal to produce diesel fuel. We have enormous reserves of coal. We burn it straight out of the ground, which is the dirtiest way of using coal in terms of non-CO2 pollutants. However, liquifying coal into diesel provides a fuel that burns much cleaner than petroleum derived diesel fuels because the liquifaction process also removes most of the pollutants. Dieasel fuel is the central fuel of our transport industries, which is, in turn, the largest consumer of petroleum. Putting the transport industry on a fuel we can make ourselves instead of import would go a long way toward getting us off foreign oil depenency. It would be a perfect stop gap in a move toward energy independence, which is an essential step in getting rid of oil entirely. The only problem with coal liquifaction is it does nothing about our CO2 footprint. It redduces all pollutants, but generates as much CO2, and is therefore not an acceptable solution to the AGW morons.

ok. I see there is a misunderstanding here and I will keep the argument confined to CO2. I am talkinjg greenhouse gases and you are talking CO2 stricktly.

First of all? If it is petroleum based? Not interested...

As far as diesel fuel?

If it wasn't for pollution regulators, deisel would be even worse.

Reduction of sulfur emissions
In the past, diesel fuel contained higher quantities of sulfur. European emission standards and preferential taxation have forced oil refineries to dramatically reduce the level of sulfur in diesel fuels. In the United States, more stringent emission standards have been adopted with the transition to ULSD starting in 2006 and becoming mandatory on June 1, 2010 (see also diesel exhaust). U.S. diesel fuel typically also has a lower cetane number (a measure of ignition quality) than European diesel, resulting in worse cold weather performance and some increase in emissions

Though over all? It is still bad.....

Health effects

Diesel combustion exhaust is a major source of atmospheric soot and fine particles, which is a fraction of air pollution implicated in human heart and lung damage. Diesel exhaust also contains nanoparticles.

While the study of nanoparticles and nanotoxicology is still in its infancy, the full health effects from nanoparticles produced by all types of diesel are unknown. At least one study has observed that short term exposure to diesel exhaust does not result in adverse extra-pulmonary effects, effects that are often correlated with an increase in cardiovascular disease. Long term effects still need to be clarified, as well as the effects on susceptible groups of people with cardiopulmonary diseases.

It should be noted that the types and quantities of nanoparticles can vary according to operating temperatures and pressures, presence of an open flame, fundamental fuel type and fuel mixture, and even atmospheric mixtures. As such, the resulting types of nanoparticles from different engine technologies and even different fuels are not necessarily comparable. In general, the usage of biodiesel and biodiesel blends results in decreased pollution. One study has shown that the volatile component of 95% of diesel nanoparticles is unburned lubricating oil.

I personally have been supporting Ethanol feul. It would save alot of farmers that are struggling. Especially in poor countries and is more enviornmentally friendly. Though it would be temporary. I expect better alternatives to arise in the next few decades.

If you cannot understand the study I referenced, just say so. The study determined whether air with CO2 and CH4 in a range of low concentrations (250-360 ppmv and 1500-1750 ppbv respectively) actually demonstrate a difference in greenhouse effect. (ie: heat retention) The data that resulted from the experiments was unable to find any difference. The math is a quantum physics analysis that basically shows that in low concentrations the heat retention properties of CO2 and CH4 are insufficient because there are too few CO2 or CH4 molecules in a representative sample of air. The energy from a CO2 or CH4 molecule is so likely to transfer itself in a few milliseconds to another molecule that have lower heat retention properties that the few moments extra the CO2 or CH4 molecule hangs onto the energy (heat) is not significant enough to cause a macro change in the air sample's mean temperature.

This study sounds like a bunch of B.S. Even someone with half a brain can see that.

I have already shown that CO2 plays a major factor in trapping heat in our atmosphere.

http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Bi-Ca/Carbon-Dioxide-in-the-Ocean-and-Atmosphere.html

Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) is considered a trace gas in the atmosphere because it is much less abundant than oxygen or nitrogen. However, this trace gas plays a vital role in sustaining life on Earth and in controlling the Earth's climate by trapping heat in the atmosphere.

Yes, CO2 is important to the environment. Without CO2 photosynthesis could not take place. But according to scientific studies, CO2 in the concentrations found in the atmosphere INCLUDING human sources, is not a driver in atmospheric temperatures. Want to refute that, find a study that actually measures a difference in the heat retention of air at current CO2 concentrations.

Any scientist that makes such a claim is not a very good scientist.

ALL scientists concur that CO2 has alot to do with heat trapped in our atmosphere as I have already shown many times.

Some may argue that water vapour plays a large role, and CO2 plays a very minor role but they are mistaken.

Actually It is a major contributor. And this seems to show why GW has a bigger affect in the northern hemisphere.

In 2008, the CO2 global average concentration in Earth's atmosphere was about 0.0385% by volume, or 385 parts per million by volume (ppmv). This is 101 ppmv (35%) above the 1832 ice core levels of 284 ppmv. There is an annual fluctuation of about 3–9 ppmv which roughly follows the Northern Hemisphere's growing season. The Northern Hemisphere dominates the annual cycle of CO2 concentration because it has much greater land area and plant biomass than the Southern Hemisphere. Concentrations peak in May as the Northern Hemisphere spring greenup begins and reach a minimum in October when the quantity of biomass undergoing photosynthesis is greatest.

Despite its relatively small concentration overall in the atmosphere, CO2 is an important component of Earth's atmosphere because it absorbs and emits infrared radiation at wavelengths of 4.26 µm (asymmetric stretching vibrational mode) and 14.99 µm (bending vibrational mode), thereby playing a role in the greenhouse effect. See also "Carbon dioxide equivalent".

Though water vapour is also a greenhouse gas and the more carbon you have, the more water vapour is held in the atmosphere.

Because the water vapor content of the atmosphere will increase in response to warmer temperatures, there is a water vapor feedback is expected to amplify the climate warming effect due to increased carbon dioxide alone. It is less clear how cloudiness would respond to a warming climate; depending on the nature of the response, clouds could either further amplify or partly mitigate warming from long-lived greenhouse gases.

Water Vapour Feedback

The Clausius-Clapeyron relation establishes that air can hold more water vapor per unit volume when it warms. This and other basic principles indicate that warming associated with increased concentrations of the other greenhouse gases also will increase the concentration of water vapor.

Here is some other interesting facts in regards to greenhouse gases.

Although water vapour is the most abundant and does account for a lot of warming? The rest release more heat and radiation.

Water vapour has a significant influence with regard to absorbing IR radiation (which is the green house effect); however its concentration in the atmosphere mainly depends on air temperature. As there is no possibility to directly influence atmospheric water vapour concentration, the GWP-level for water vapour is not calculated; see greenhouse gas.

Sources are wikipedia "carbon dioxide" and "water vapour feedback"

LOL Now you are simply parading your profound ignorance in the very science you are trying to discuss. Proof positive you are only parroting what your liberal masters are telling you to believe.

Heat retention is a property of all matter. Each atom and each molecule has a unique value which is dependent on the structure of the outer electron shells. The water molecule has a heat retention value 20 times that of the CO2 molecule. Water is also found in much higher concentrations in the atmosphere. Water vapor has a REAL greenhouse effect which is measurable, unlike the greenhouse effect of CO2 at low concentrations. The heat retention of water vapor is why it stays warmer during a cloudy night than a clear night. It's why deserts which reach over 100 degrees during the day can cool off to below freezing at night - no water vapor to keep the heat in.

Yawn...I'm not talking about heat retention. I am talking about heat RADIATION. And I am not a liberal. I am not classified under any group affiliation.

I'm not quite sure how much heat a fart radiates but I would imagine very little as opposed to greenhouse gases and CO2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_house_effect

Enhanced greenhouse effect

When it comes to the physical processes that produce the greenhouse effect, increases that are caused by human activities are known as the enhanced (or anthropogenic) greenhouse effect.[14] This increase in radiative forcing from human activity is contributed to mostly by increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.[15]

CO2 is produced by fossil fuel burning and other activities such as cement production and tropical deforestation. Measurements of CO2 from the Mauna Loa observatory show that concentrations have increased from about 313 ppm in 1960 to about 383 ppm in 2009. The current observed amount of CO2 exceeds the geological record maxima (~300 ppm) from ice core data. The effect of combustion-produced carbon dioxide on the global climate, a special case of the greenhouse effect first described in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius, has also been called the Callendar effect.

Because it is a greenhouse gas, elevated CO2 levels contribute to additional absorption and emission of thermal infrared in the atmosphere, which could contribute to net warming. In fact, according to Assessment Reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations".

And once more you parade your ignorance in the science you are attempting to discuss.

For a photosynthetic plant to release oxygen, it must take in CO2. It's a relatively simple equation. CO2 + H2O yields C6H12O + O2 It is the same formula whether phytoplankton is doing it, or a tree. Since the oceans do over 90% of the conversion (with 3% attributed to tropical forests, and 7% for the rest of the land masses), they BOTH release 90% of photosynthetic oxygen AND take in 90% of CO2 in the carbon cycle. The claim that oceans produce the majority of oxygen from photosynthesis, but only take in 1/3 the CO2 is either profound ignorance(ie: trying to directly compare two different items, CO2 in the carbon cycle, and CO2 held in aqueous solution), or an outright lie.

What is profound ignorance is your condescending tone when you have proven absoluetly nothing. Just your opinion supported by no substancial evidence.

Oceans convert mostly CO2 PRODUCED UNDERWATER to Oxygen.

There is more CO2 being produced on LAND and as I have already stated, the ocean accounts for only 1/3. The trees and plants account for the rest of the CO2 conversion to oxygen.

If the earth didn't need trees, they would not exist. They play a vital part of our enviornment.Just because you huff and puff like a baby, does not make it otherwise.

We know that oceans HOLD alot of CO2, it does NOT convert it all..And alot is released back into the atmosphere.

http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Bi-Ca/Carbon-Dioxide-in-the-Ocean-and-Atmosphere.html

The oceans are mixed much more slowly than the atmosphere, so there are large horizontal and vertical changes in CO 2 concentration. In general, tropical waters release CO 2 to the atmosphere, whereas high-latitude oceans take up CO 2 from the atmosphere. CO 2 is also about 10 percent higher in the deep ocean than at the surface. The two basic mechanisms that control the distribution of carbon in the oceans are referred to as the solubility pump and the biological pump.

I strongly suggest you simply give up trying to discuss the science behind AGW "theory". You clearly do not know shit from apple butter when it comes to the basics of physics and chemistry.

The ability of water to hold gasses in solution is varied according to temperature. That goes for ALL gasses, including both O2 and CO2. As water warms, it will release dissolved gasses.

Isnt that what I just said you moron?

That also includes both CO2 and O2. But thanks for pointing out that we have a perfectly sound explanation for the vast majority of the obserrved increase in atmospheric CO2, that involves the anti-AGW principle that warming occurs first, and CO2 increases afterward - a principle that, unlike AGW claims, actually matched the observed data.

That is more B.S.!!! All your so call opinions are all bunch of B.S. All misinformation with no science behind it(just misleading science).

I'm talking oceans and you switch to Atmosphere!!

How can CO2 increase after the warming? As warming increases so does the plant's ability to convert CO2 to oxygen. So I am calling B.S. !!!! The only thing increasing CO2 would be cold temperatures(since plants start to die and thus conversion slows down and more CO2 results from decomposing mass) or HUMAN emitted CO2.

Therefore the observations are B.S.

And yet another wiki article. Clue: Wiki is written by laypersons. And while few articles are deliberately misleading, not many that describe scientific principles are entirely accurate, either. The article you reference cannot even keep its numbers straight. In one sentence it states that about 1/3 of human sourced CO2 is absorbed by the oceans, then not long after, references a NOAA study that states about 1/2 of human derived CO2 is absorbed by the oceans. I am supposed to take credence in an article that can't even be internally consistent?

Also, (as is typical of the AGW crowd) the hoopla about increased carbolic acids being detrimental to sea life is not borne out by paleontological studies that show corals and other marine life flourished above and beyond what we see today under conditions of warmer waters and VASTLY higher atmospheric and aqueous CO2 concentrations. In fact ocean life in general, and corals specifically fell off with the beginning of the ice ages and have fluctuated with the rest of the world, UPWARD during warmer periods, and downward during colder periods.

Yawn...Beats your sources which are absolutely nothing. Try to prove wikipedia wrong, if your so smart.

And one speaks about ALL human activity and the other as a result of burning fossil fuels. Learn to read.

WHAT A LIE!!! I have articles at home stating that GW Is effecting our corals in a negative way.I will supply the article when I get home. AGAIN I AM CALLING B.S. As far as I am concerned you have lost all credibility and are trying to pass your B.S. as facts to win the argument.

Been looking in the mirror, have you?

No I haven't you dweeb.

You have not proven (proved? LOL) anything. Both major studies I have referenced for you which discuss CO2 forcing (you know, actual scientific studies, as opposed to articles about reports about the conclusions of a study that you like to use) had nothing to do with big business.

Oh please. I posted about 10 articles that state otherwise. I have submitted numerous scientific links and reputable new sources stated that we are the cause of GW,through the burning of fossil fuels.


In conclusion?The rest was not worth replying to. I see your game is to use misinformation and to waste my time. Plus I am over the character limit.

I have proven wthout a shadow of a doubt that GW is real with sources like NASA, Scientific academies all over the world, NOAA and even the petroleum industry themselves. And that WE are the cause.

You have nothing.

I have also shown the side effects of GW, you remain ignorant.

I think this debate is done.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

But Co2 is essential to plants, who produce oxygen for us. It;s a symbiosis. trying to cut out carbon dioxide from the equation is a moronic level of tampering, likely to have negative consequences.

 

[wiseones2cents]

But Co2 is essential to plants, who produce oxygen for us. It;s a symbiosis. trying to cut out carbon dioxide from the equation is a moronic level of tampering, likely to have negative consequences.

I agree AHZ. No one suggests cutting out CO2. Thats impossible. But nature makes enough CO2 for the process to occur.

Though what happens if we keep cutting down trees? The balance is disturbed, CO2 levels will rise and and so will temps and heat waves.....

Now I know in North America we replant a lot of trees. My concern is in other countries, especially rainforests.

Though again, I will repeat, the main problem is with the pollutants from burning fossil fuels. Polluting our air,waters,and soil which eventually make it into our bodies and could lead to all kinds of illnesses.

Also these pollutants do heat up the atmosphere, and as I already explained, if the rate of thaw increases and the ice caps start to melt,it will have very negative effects.

If the rate of thaw is reduced or controlled? I am all for melting the Arctic. We would have warmer climates in the north, though I'm not sure how hot it would get in the south. I haven't tried to calculate this yet.No cool north winds in the summer.Then again, no hurricanes and tornadoes either.

We would have more access to a treasure trove of resources, more fishable waters, more land(especially farmable), ect...

We'd have to start selling ice cubes or bottled water from Greenland to prevent the ice from melting into the ocean.lol

Maybe we should make a water pipeline to somewhere, where they really need it.