Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > The Science of Global Warming      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Dr. Gazebo
Joined: 3/24/2008
Msg: 1
The Science of Global WarmingPage 1 of 19    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
I have a read a few climate change debate threads lately and I think its appropriate to summarize the science behind climate change. Its evident to me that detractors of the idea have no idea what they are talking about. So let me set the record straight. I aint no climatologist, but I do have the benefit of 3 university courses on environmental science, including analytical laboratory methods.

CO2 is produced mostly by fossil fuel consumption and associated petrochemical industries. When it is released, one third ends up in the oceans dissolving to form a weak acid, resulting in ocean acidification. A quarter is absorbed by the ecosystem, although this estimate has been found to be generous and inaccurate, its less. The rest remains in the atmosphere. Global consumption of fossil fuels will rise 2 per cent in the next year, meaning emissions will rise by half a billion tons. The following year emissions are predicted to increase another 2 percent. China and other countries are building many coal dirty energy stations, this is making the problem worse. This year we produced, as a global community, a total of 30 billion tons of CO2.

Current global CO2 value is 385 ppm. GIven current emission trends, we will reach 550 ppm over the next 5 years, which is twice pre industrial levels.

The Arctic ice cap has shrunk by half since the 1950s. Annually the melt rate is about 24,000 square miles, an area the size of West Virginia. 150 million acres of forests have died over the past 10 years in the US and Canada combined due to warming related beetle infestations. Climate change is believed to underlie the growing refugee problems in Darfur and other agricultual based countries. These are not predictions, they are facts on the ground. Predictions are much worse.

I hope this helps.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 2
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/9/2008 8:07:00 PM
Good luck to you with this thread.

If you've read the other threads on the topic here you know what to expect.

You'll be bashed by those sure that you and me and all who believe the peer-reviewed science on this topic are simply pushing our anti-american agenda to take away their liberties and destroy their way of life.

Al Gore will be asserted to be the primary cause of all this fuss and his character lampooned endlessly.

Every quack theory known to man will be trotted out as if it has equal standing to the very valid science you cite that we both know is but the tip of the melting iceberg behind current legitimate climate science.

All the legitimate science will be dismissed as 'just a theory, and not a very good one'.

Maybe a rational discussion will ensue. I sure hope so.

But I'm not holding my breath.

Dave
 sam-spade
Joined: 12/2/2007
Msg: 3
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/10/2008 9:55:28 AM
It doesn't matter who or what is to blame. The north pole is melting ffs.

In 1960, the Aral Sea in Central Asia was the 4th largest sea on the planet. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea) By 2007, it had shrunk to 10% of it's original size with a shoreline that has receded by a whopping 100 kilometers (about 62 miles). The sea bed, now a dry desert. The sea has shrivelled into 3 residual lakes of which 2 are so salty, fish can't live there. Thriving fishing fleets have made way to abandoned fishing vessels sitting on their keels in the middle of a desert with nothing to do other than bake in the sun. Shore communities have collapsed, and winds blow salt and toxins across populated areas. But this is not the only Sea in trouble. There are many worldwide. Special mention goes to Lake Chad in Central Africa and The Salton Sea in Southern California are both in big trouble.

All this is blamed on poorly managed irrigation. You can pump water out of these places and be ok, but there comes a tipping point when you take out more than what trickles in, and you can guess what happens next. Now I've had major shrinkage after dipping into a lake (lol), but I never though about us shrinking them!

We need water to grow food, and it seems that with increased production of bio fuels, we'll only need more. LOTS more.

Where the heck is it all going to come from! Does floating an iceberg, that contain huge amounts of water, into it's own harbour a viable solution? If it is, then will there be any icebergs left around to "hijack"?
 Lukus27
Joined: 6/15/2008
Msg: 4
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/10/2008 11:01:14 AM
Er global warming is causes by the sun..increased sun spot activity..All the planets in the solar system are experiencing it do they have factorys and cars on them too?
 kelman14
Joined: 12/7/2007
Msg: 5
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/10/2008 12:59:49 PM
We (civilized world) should have taught birth control because we started handing out vaccines like they were candy.
 Dr. Gazebo
Joined: 3/24/2008
Msg: 6
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/10/2008 6:39:30 PM
Its my hope that we continue to see posts here, adding to the material presented. It can serve as a reference point for people in politics and current affairs forums, as a scientific citation. This eliminates the need to pull references each time this topic comes up.

So please post any relevant scientific data on this issue here. This thread is only for scientific data supporting the global warming theory. If you wish to start a a separate thread debunking the theory, please be my guest, but this isnt a debate, its a compendium of research findings on global warming.

Hoping for more posts like Sam Spades. Thanks Dave, as well.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 7
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/10/2008 7:19:09 PM
Cool! Here's one interesting piece that crossed my email today......

http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/37619

Here's the first few paragraphs...


Carbon Sciences: Turning Carbon Emissions into "GreenCarbon"

A small startup based in Santa Barbara, California is testing an alternative to carbon sequestration that, in a sense (perhaps more poetic than scientific), turns the second law of thermodynamics — entropy — on its head by taking waste CO2 and tailings from mining operations and turning the mix into materials of a “higher order” for use in a variety of industrial, agricultural, and environmental applications.

Carbon Sciences, founded by CEO Derek McLeish, has developed a relatively simple technology that puts the brew under pressure and temperature to create PCC (precipitated calcium carbonate). Traditionally, calcium carbonate is produced through an energy-intensive process using expensive materials such as limestone; the “GreenCarbon” technology takes this normally exhaustive process and simplifies it, thus producing a useful, benign material while transforming carbon emissions instead of simply sequestering it — a method of carbon mitigation that McLeish considers high-risk at best.

From paper to plastic, wallboard to fertilizer, PCC is a common component of many everyday products, materials, and industrial processes. According to McLeish there is a $12 billion demand for PCC.


Yet another example of how addressing climate change can bring profits and help the economy....

Dave
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 8
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/10/2008 7:36:42 PM

So please post any relevant scientific data on this issue here. This thread is only for scientific data supporting the global warming theory. If you wish to start a a separate thread debunking the theory, please be my guest, but this isnt a debate, its a compendium of research findings on global warming.

Bullcrap.

First of all, if the thread isn't for discussion or debate, then it's preaching/exclusivity of truth/etc. Any number of rules violations.

Second, if you want to discuss science, then you must accept debate. Presenting one-sided evidence is not rational and is not scientific. Making your case in that way lowers you to the level of the average creationist, conspiracy nut, or "denier". Note the two earlier posts - one completely irrelevant, the other a completely unsupported assertion of "denial".

Beyond that, this thread is just redundant at this point. There are a number of threads already which provide the very same arguments.
 morgana2012
Joined: 6/11/2005
Msg: 9
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/11/2008 11:40:26 PM
Sun's solar flares heating up Earth: On Dec 30, 1983 Nasa's reported IRAS infrared astromical satellite found a heavenly body as large as Jupiter headed toward our Sun. They now deny the report. Twin sun of our binary solar system and it's 4 planets, Nibiru, ancients tell us it returns every 3600 years. Also known as Planet X it travels between the Mars and Jupiter on a tilted 30 degrees to the plane of our rotation. In 2011, as solar flares cripple most of our communication satellites, global panic sets in cell phones and cable tv will begin to draw to a close, dial-up will still be available. While one million have been chosen to be safe at Cheyenne Mountain AFB underground radiation-proof bunker, the rest of us will be left to fend for ourselves. DEC 21, 2012 is when our Sun passes through the densest plane of the galaxy. On FEB 14, 2013 Earth will pass between our Sun and Planet X with both of these two magnetic giants pulling Earth in opposite directions. A Pole Shift is most likely to occur then. If a Pole Shift happens rapidly in a few hours it would result it could mean massive tsunamis inundating coastal cities - the ultimate planetary catastrophe and mass extinction of species. Four billion yrs ago it is thought when Nibiru passed through, one of its moons struck the earth, causing the formation of the moon and on it's last visit it may have been what caused Noah's flood and before that - the sinking of Atlantis. The Myans mention a black hole in 2012 and the bible mentions a star called Wormwood Rev 8:10-11.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 10
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/12/2008 4:11:01 AM
You left out the part about the moon being made of blue cheese. Which, incidentally, ALSO has nothing to do with the topic. It's supported by just as much evidence as "Nibiru". See any of the 2012/Nibiru/Noah's Ark/Atlantis threads for the clear evidence against all the points above.
 Last not Least
Joined: 10/27/2007
Msg: 11
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/12/2008 6:12:13 AM
Noah's flood? There is a melding of biblical references and pagan references and just plain whacked out references. How can any hope of truth come out of all that?
Constructing a belief out of so much fantasy is really going far out on a limb. See, this is what happens when people have inadequate critical thinking skills. Either that or have both oars in the water.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 12
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/12/2008 8:28:38 AM
So please post any relevant scientific data on this issue here. This thread is only for scientific data supporting the global warming theory.


Oh goody. So when do we get to see the scientific data? For instance, I'd love to see the reference that says "CO2 is produced mostly by fossil fuel consumption and associated petrochemical industries". Make sure this is a reference to a peer reviewed scientific journal.
 chazster
Joined: 8/28/2007
Msg: 13
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/12/2008 11:17:16 AM
This may be true, however, the planet goes through a continuous cycle of warming and cooling. Even without our industrialized society the planet would still be getting warmer. After a certain amount of time it would cool off and go into another mini ice age. It is all part of the planets natural cycle. You can look up the little ice age that happened around the 16th century. There have been several over the course of the planet.
 nicebluiz
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 14
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/12/2008 2:11:39 PM
I'll voice my agreement here with Count Ibli. Kindly post the science from the peer-reviewed journals that back up that statement.
 Dr. Gazebo
Joined: 3/24/2008
Msg: 15
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/12/2008 2:36:59 PM
Nice and Ibli

This thread is for advanced readers on the subject. The fact that we create 30 billion tonnes of CO2 per year is undisputed, as is the fact that CO2 has increased since the 1950s. As is the fact that human activity is the main contibuter to this increase.

You are asking 101 questions. This thread is for the advanced student of climate change. You need to learn the basics then come back and contribute. I am not going to reference every statement on the basics of climate change. Thats me doing your work for you. In fact, I am suspicious that your only intent was to derail this discussion by forcing participants to spend hours of time referencing even the most mundane of facts. Thats filibusting a thread. Its like making me prove that John Lennon lived in New York first, if I want to discuss his assassination. Its begging the question.

Chaster, there have been several global mini ice ages yes. These data have nothing to do with the current warming trend. I do not see how your data can explain the loss of the polar icecaps or the expansion of desertification in Africa.
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 16
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/12/2008 2:56:42 PM

You'll be bashed by those sure that you and me and all who believe the peer-reviewed science on this topic are simply pushing our anti-american agenda to take away their liberties and destroy their way of life.

I would like to see how "peer review" proves anything. It appears to be a vote from a group of paper readers selected by some mysterious process known only to journal editors. Scientific "proof" is through experimentation in controlled circumstances and even that is only a conclusion, not an absolute fact. Science embraces challenges to accepted conclusions. Labels of quackery are the tools of editors, you know, the ones who select peers? Beliefs are the base components of a religion, not science. As for anti-American, I would be concerned more about misguided activism damaging the planet's inhabitants as a whole. As an example, the ethanol mandates are labeled by the president of India as a crime against humanity. I see massive environmental damage from these mandates to sea life and the destruction of habitat. The mandates are a direct result of the AGW political activism from believers such as yourself. So are you going to be a "denier" about your environmental and human destruction?


Al Gore will be asserted to be the primary cause of all this fuss and his character lampooned endlessly.

Al Gore is a lawyer politician heavily invested in carbon credits trading. He makes a lot of money from the AGW movement but it pales in comparison to potential prefits he will make from trading of carbon credits. To carry out his message, he travels around in a private jet, perhaps the worst carbon offending transportation available. He has absolutely no technical credentials. Can you explain how this is "lampooning" him? I would love to personally debate him. By comparison, my carbon footprint is a tiny fraction of his and my scientific credentials vastly greater. I never took an oath to set aside my moral judgment as he did to become a lawyer.


Every quack theory known to man will be trotted out......

Talk about level headed unbiased examination of science. The core premises of AGW is the property of CO2 to absorb specific bands in the IR region. The theory is that the absorption of IR would in effect insulate the earth and make it hotter. For that reason, it is called a green house gas. Even this name is misleading. CO2 has nothing to do with the heat of a green house. A green house is full of plants and would probably have less than ambient CO2 levels. The density of CO2 in the atmosphere would absorb virtually all the IR it will absorb within a few hundred feet while the atmosphere is miles thick. The CO2 effect is way past saturation throughout the atmosphere. Changes in its density amount to little more than coats of paint, not layers of insulation. So what is the real quack theory? I would say it is the one using a completely misleading label "green house gas" from the very start.


All the legitimate science will be dismissed as 'just a theory, and not a very good one'.

Which side is dismissing theories as "quack"? Note quote above. What I see are alternate explanations with reasonable science.


Maybe a rational discussion will ensue. I sure hope so.

The AGW activism didn't start with rational thought, why should it have it now?


But I'm not holding my breath.

An interesting metaphor. The AGW is asking the industrial world to hold its breath while those at the top of the AGW movement make millions off the mandates and artificial carbon credits market all the while the third world starves as a result. Is that the bashing you expected or simply a response your bashing (again note the label "quack") you started?
 Just alittle crazy
Joined: 2/24/2008
Msg: 17
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/12/2008 3:25:47 PM

Making your case in that way lowers you to the level of the average creationist, conspiracy nut, or "denier".
Bull Crap you say:

I just love your scientific logic ...... your way or no way science!

Denial you say. If you can actually say fossil fuel gases in the past 100 years has done nothing to the Earth and does not cause problems you are seriously in denial.

FrogO Sorry I have read many of your posts and I just do not believe you have this ultimate knowledge in science that all of us should listen to as truth. What you have to say, makes me think you are just human as the rest of us and I do not have to be a scientist to see CO2 is harming everything on this earth.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 18
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/12/2008 6:52:43 PM
You completely miss my point. The OP asked for ONLY evidence in support of anthropogenic global warming. In other words, he specifically requested a one-sided argument, to the exclusion of contrary evidence. That is NOT science, and science is rooted in logic. I don't claim to know the sum of all knowledge, but I am intimately familiar with the scientific method. The scientific method does NOT exclude relevant but contrary data. It INcludes all relevant data, leading to a logical conclusion which is consistant with the data. Any bias in the conclusions can be attributed to flaws in the method, or bias of the researcher. The scientific method is essentially unbiased. The OP requested exclusivity of truth, ergo, NOT science. Even though the sources cited may all be valid, the reader's conclusions will not be, because they have been deliberately insulated from all relevant data. Oddly enough, this is usually a "denial" method. If you have read many of my posts, you may note that I am a far cry from a 'denier', but I am cognizant of evidence presented on both sides. I favor anthropogenic global warning on two bases: 1)majority of evidence, 2)more rational arguments.

To reiterate - you missed my point. I'm offering no knowledge or "truth" here, and I'm not favoring EITHER side. I'm saying that valid science and valid debate cannot exclude relevant data it doesn't like. That's inarguable.

On one of Dave's points [and only one...er...two...sorry Dave, take a step back; you've been on pretty weak ground lately - eg. your reference to Al Gore's status as a lawyer is an ad hominem fallacy and by extension an argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy]:

I would like to see how "peer review" proves anything. It appears to be a vote from a group of paper readers selected by some mysterious process known only to journal editors. Scientific "proof" is through experimentation in controlled circumstances and even that is only a conclusion, not an absolute fact.

Peer review "proves" nothing. What it DOES do is present the work to a set of experts in the field in order to determine whether the methods and conclusions presented are valid. Since the layman is often not qualified to determine that, and will draw conclusions without examining the core of the materials, methods, statistics, background, etc, the result of no peer review is the kind of things which are illogical, unscientific or utterly false...yet which are still believed by the crowds I've mentioned before: deniers, creationists, conspiracy theorists, and "Nibiru is gonna kill us like it killed Noah and Atlantis" devotees. Peer review is achieved by submitting the work anonymously to two or more researchers who are familiar [ie., well-known and published researchers on the topics] with the subject or methods contained in the writing. They will read the paper and submit their comments to the editor, who will then make a preliminary decision before passing the reviews back to the authors for review or revision. If the authors' conclusions are rejected, it will only be because their own evidence does not support their conclusions. Otherwise, criticism tends to include failure to include [particular] relevant references, failure to use proper statistical tests [many of the papers I read include, as references, papers which are PURELY about statistical methods, for which there are entire journals], invalid conclusions, statistically invalid conclusions...etc. The method isn't arcane. It's anonymous. Recognized resrearchers in the field review the paper and make recommendations based upon its scientific merit or lack thereof. A savvy researcher conducts his OWN review first, by submitting to his peers first, and THEN submitting for publication. There's a decent chance you can revise a paper suitably before it ever goes through the official process. That said, it doesn't matter much. If the basics are solid, then a re-write or re-processing of data is really all that's needed. There are now digital journals such as ZooTaxa which go from acceptance to publication in under a month.

A proper conclusion to scientific analysis will be correct. It may not be the whole truth, but it should be correct. That is; given two choices only, "A" and "everything that is not A", one will be found impossible. Either that or the data will be insufficient to draw a conclusion. Subsequent studies SHOULD only refine the conclusion. If they refute it, it's likely due to flaws in the original work, but the reasons will be spelled out, and even THEY may not be fully valid.

Peer reviewed or not, all research should be open to scrutiny. A key difference between peer reviewed and unreviewed works is, the reviewed works are actually filtered by a knowledgable and scientific audience who UNDERSTANDS what they're looking at. Both works reach an uncritical audience in the end, and THAT audience will pick and choose bits and pieces as "gospel", regardless of whether it is at all logical, rational, or valid.
 Last not Least
Joined: 10/27/2007
Msg: 19
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/12/2008 8:26:39 PM
Agenda trumps peer reviewing anyway. Could you imagine being a scientist who goes against the grain on climate change? I don't think I would be overly vocal.
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 20
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/13/2008 11:53:11 AM
FrogO, perhaps my greatest concern over peer review is that in the world of politics, we don't have the benefit of such meticulous filtering. We have the voting public and politicians with all kinds of motives. The anonymous nature, as demonstrated in these forums, opens up even lower character traits. In the world of lawyers, who make up 80% of our representatives, their professional oath boils down to advocacy for their paying clients and the exclusion of moral judgment. It is pretty much the opposite of those like yourself who have a "moral" compass driving you to your quest for understanding.

The physics are still out as I see too many problems with the AGW theory and way too much religious chanting. I see dire consequences from the AGW activism in the form of poorly thought out political actions. MTBE and ethanol mandates are examples. Look to lobbying efforts by usually Republican ADM to sell that one. In the future, I see serious issues with hydrogen yet so much of the public have some impression it is actually an available fuel. All this stinks of a religion, not a science. These forums are on a dating site, not some scientific panel. The audience are generally not scientists yet in the political scheme of things, its up to them to decide who to trust and what direction we go.

Al Gore, the high priest of AWG is making a fortune off his ministry all the while being about as hypocritical with carbon footprint as one can get. In the background, he is invested in future carbon credits trading. The public needs to know that such a market is nothing more than a surcharge on the energy they need but instead of going to government coffers and thus back to them, it will go to the pockets of Al Gore, George Soros, and other speculators buying influence from their advocate lawyer politicians to create the artificial market in imaginary goods. Considering that George Soros is likely behind the speculation run up of oil futures and thus indirectly behind the mortgage crisis, the scam makes the oil monopoly charges pale by comparison.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 21
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/13/2008 12:19:43 PM
I actually agree with you regarding lawyers and politicians [in general]. That's not the point. In fact, they are irrelevant as far as science is concerned. Al Gore is a red herring. By and large, the ONLY people who refer to him are "deniers", and they do so without actually referring to any significant scientific evidence most of the time. Most of those of the opposing camp never make reference to Al Gore! They refer to one scientific paper after another, one logical argument after another. Al Gore would not be so flagrantly in the public eye were it not for the denial crowd which keeps bringing him up as a fallacious argument. Argue the science, not the mouthpiece.

The whole carbon tax situation IS a scam, and a fairly flagrant one at that. Governments already take sizable taxes from fuel. What portion of those taxes go back into "green" research or solutions? Now we have the Liberal party in Canada touting an additional "carbon tax". What's their plan? Carbon sequestering? More efficient fuel use? Less polluting energy sources? No...they state openly that it's a way to "share the wealth" with everyone else through their social programs. I've got no problem with social programs per se, but this approach is a clear scam. It's a cash grab and nothing more. They call it a carbon tax, which implies that it's somehow related to green solutions, when nothing could be further from the truth. They just want a bigger cut of the pie.

I've also seen it suggested that AGW is just a scam so that government and business can secretly skim more money from the oil business. Pf. Idiocy. Consumer demand is already cranking prices and governments are openly adding carbon taxes. They don't need any scams or any hidden taxes in order to take more money.
 Robinson2
Joined: 3/21/2008
Msg: 22
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/13/2008 1:23:03 PM
Peacethx, you are so completely and utterly wrong, I'm actually starting to feel a little sorry for you (especially with your appeal to authority with your 3 University courses!).

Here's a book for you to read, written by an eminent climatologist:

http://www.amazon.com/Meltdown-Predictable-Distortion-Scientists-Politicians/dp/1930865791/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215980041&sr=8-1

Here's a few websites, hosted by some rather clever fellows, who also disagree with your prognosis:

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/
http://www.climateaudit.org/

I don't have the time (or inclination at present) to address your substantive points one by one, but I have to say that they are all false, except the one where CO2 is predicted to rise from 385 to 550ppm. Given that in the past CO2 has been much, much higher (an order of magnitude) with no runaway global warming, I think I can say we're safe for now. The "facts on the ground" you speak of are no such thing. Scientists, if we choose to believe them, suggest a period of Global Cooling is about to be upon us, possibly equal in severity to that of The Little Ice Age. It has nothing to do with man and everything to do with the Sun.
 Last not Least
Joined: 10/27/2007
Msg: 23
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/13/2008 2:22:58 PM
Think of how much the government is making in gas taxes now. GST is added as a tax on a tax. It is extremely likely that the carbon tax will in essence be a tax on a tax on a tax.
Want to guess what their true motivation is?
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 24
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/13/2008 3:09:57 PM
FrogO the whole point of the man made CO2 global warming is the damage to Earth's inhabitants. The whole argument would be meaningless without it. Should not a similar alarm be raised about damage from the AGW activism? The former is an uncertain theory based on probably faulty assumptions of a gas misleadingly labeled "green house" with results that coincidentally resemble Earths natural cycles. The damage from latter is becoming more clear every day. What goes on in man's society has vast impact on the environment. That happens to be behind the AGW movement as well.
 floosy
Joined: 7/8/2008
Msg: 25
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/13/2008 4:46:32 PM

The core premises of AGW is the property of CO2 to absorb specific bands in the IR region. The theory is that the absorption of IR would in effect insulate the earth and make it hotter. For that reason, it is called a green house gas. Even this name is misleading. CO2 has nothing to do with the heat of a green house. A green house is full of plants and would probably have less than ambient CO2 levels. The density of CO2 in the atmosphere would absorb virtually all the IR it will absorb within a few hundred feet while the atmosphere is miles thick. The CO2 effect is way past saturation throughout the atmosphere. Changes in its density amount to little more than coats of paint, not layers of insulation.



The term greenhouse gas does not imply that the heat of a greenhouse is caused by CO2. UV rays from the sun pass through the glass of a greenhouse and are absorbed by the objects inside, which then radiate some of that energy as heat, or IR. Glass is transparent to UV but not to IR, so the energy is trapped within the greenhouse, which warms up as a result. CO2 and other greenhouse gases are also transparent to UV but not to IR and therefore create a similar effect, hence the term.

Your statement that the CO2 effect is past saturation is not accurate. The limit to the extent which CO2 will absorb IR is determined by the amount of CO2 present. More CO2, more absorption. The only way saturation could be reached in that sense would be if all the IR being radiated from the earth was absorbed in the atmosphere - which it certainly isn't.

It blows my mind that apparently intelligent, well-informed people can really think that AGW doesn't exist. Every time the UN's science committee issues a new report on the topic, the consensus is that the levels of CO2 are growing more rapidly and the temperature is rising even more than previous predictions showed. Far from governments exaggerating the issue, they apply pressure to have the reports toned down - that's a matter of public record. There's a very clear, easily explicable causal link between increasing levels of CO2 and an increase in temperature. Walk into a greenhouse on a sunny day and you'll feel it.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > The Science of Global Warming