-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Climate Change!
- Thread starter mzungu
- Start date
Greatcloud
Senior Member
- May 3, 2007
- 2,814
- 271
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
http://cfa.atmos.washington.edu/2003Q4/211/articles_optional/CelestialDriver.pdf
This is all the science I believe, look carefully at the charts and graphs they are convincing and this is the other side of the issue. My side complete with an alternative in cosmic rays this is the side I believe just try and convince me otherwise. If you could convince me I would believe but you cannot. I believe it is the sun along with cosmic rays that is the culprit not my car and my breath.
The Science in Summary
The history of the Earth tells us that the climate is always changing; from warm periods when the dinosaurs flourished, to the many ice ages when glaciers covered much of the land. Climate has always changed due to natural cycles without any help from people.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a political organization promoting a theory that recent minor temperature increases may be caused largely by man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. CO2 is an infrared gas, and increasing concentrations can potentially increase the average global temperature as the gas absorbs long-wave radiation from the Earth and emits the absorbed energy. However, the warming ability of CO2 is limited because much of the absorption spectrum is near or fully saturated. When CO2 concentrations were ten times greater than today the Earth was in the grips of one of the coldest ice ages. The climate system is dominated by strong negative feedbacks from clouds and water vapour which offsets the warming effects of CO2 emissions.
The history of climate and CO2 concentration shows that temperature changes precede CO2 changes and can not be a significant driver of climate. Temperature changes over different time scales have been well correlated to solar cycles, cosmic ray flux and cloud cover. Recent research shows that cosmic rays act as a catalyst to create low clouds, which cool the planet. When the Sun is more active, the solar wind repels the cosmic rays, reducing low cloud cover allowing the Sun to warm the planet.
Computer model results presented in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report predict that global warming will cause a distinctive temperature profile in the atmosphere of enhanced warming rate in the upper atmosphere at 8 to 12 km altitude over the tropics. The predicted temperature profile is the result of an expected increase in water vapour in the upper atmosphere which would amplify a CO2 induced warming three fold. The computer models are programmed to forecast a constant water vapor relative humidity with increasing CO2 resulting in a large water vapor feedback. Actual temperature data shows no such enhanced warming profile. Therefore, the comparison of observed data to computer models proves that no such water vapour induced warming amplification exists, so CO2 is not the main climate driver. In atmosphere layers near 8 km, the modelled temperature trend from 1980 is 200 to 400% higher than observed. Weather balloon data shows that specific humidity has fallen 9% since 1960 in the upper troposphere (400 mbar pressure level) where the models predict the greatest feedback. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere replaces a significant amount of water vapour, the most important greenhouse gas, resulting in only a small increase of the greenhouse effect.
An analysis of satellite data shows that clouds cause a strong negative feedback on temperature, but climate models assume that clouds cause a positive feedback. Modelers assumed that all cloud changes are caused by temperature changes which results in them inferring a positive feedback. But changing cloud cover can also cause temperature changes. Scientists can now separate these two effects. The correct analysis shows that clouds cause a strong negative feedback, so if temperatures increase, cloud cover increases, reflecting solar energy back to space and greatly reducing the warming effect of CO2 emissions.
Several planets and moons have warmed recently along with the Earth, confirming a natural sun caused warming trend. Over longer time periods, as the solar system moves in and out of the galactic arms the cosmic ray flux changes, causing ice ages and warm ages. A comparison of temperature and solar activity proxy data suggests that solar effects can explain at least 75% of the surface warming during the last 100 years.
CO2 is plant food and the increase in the CO2 concentration may have increased the global food production by 15% since 1950 resulting in huge benefits for people. For Canada, any CO2 warming effect would also benefit us by reducing our space heating costs and making a more pleasant climate.
The IPCC predicts that global average temperatures will increase by 0.17 to 0.38 oC per decade to the end of the century depending on the rate of CO2 growth in the atmosphere and other assumptions. The projections assume that no action is taken to limit CO2 emissions. However, these predictions are unrealistic because they falsely assume that the recent temperature changes are driven solely by CO2 and that the Sun has little effect on climate. A recent study of past climate change used by the IPCC has been shown to be wrong due to the use of a faulty algorithm, and the inappropriate selection of data.
The land temperature record is contaminated by the urban heat island effect. Fully correcting the land temperature record would reduce the warming trend from 1980 to 2002 by half. The IPCC historical CO2 record may be incorrect due to inappropriate adjustments to the ice core data, and ignoring direct historical CO2 measurements. The IPCC selects and adjusts data to conform to its CO2 warming hypothesis and ignores alternative climate theories. This is the wrong way to do science. Many scientists strongly disagree with the IPCC conclusions.
The sea level data shows no increase in the recent rate of sea level rise, and no such increase is expected over the next hundred years. There has been no detected increase in severe storms and there is no reason to expect an increase in the number or intensity of hurricanes resulting from any warming assumed to be from human caused CO2 emissions.
Any increase in temperatures due to human caused CO2 emissions will likely be beneficial to human health. The CO2 fertilization effect will increase the rate of forest growth and CO2 induced crop yield increases will reduce the pressures to cut down forests for farmland expansion. This will greatly benefit animals by slowing habitat destruction.
The benefits of CO2 emissions greatly exceed any likely harmful effects. Several authorities who have studied solar cycles have warned that the Earth may soon enter a cooling phase as the Sun is expected to become less active. The atmosphere may warm because of human activity, but if it does, the expected change is unlikely to be more than 0.5 C, and probably less, in the next 100 years.
Greenhouse Gas Effect
This graphic from Trenberth et al 2009 here, shows the exchange of energy among Space, the Sun, the atmosphere and the Earth. Greenhouse gases are primarily water vapour, carbon dioxide and ozone. Greenhouse gases are mostly transparent to incoming solar radiation, but absorb outgoing long wavelength radiation. The absorbed energy is then transferred to cooler molecules or radiated at longer wavelengths than the energy previously absorbed. This process makes the Earth warmer than it otherwise would be without the greenhouse gases (but with the atmosphere and clouds) by about 33 degrees Celsius.
Water vapour and clouds together account for over 70% of the total current greenhouse effect. However, in terms of changes to the greenhouse effect due to human activities, water vapour is generally considered a feedback and not a forcing agent. Computer simulations show the a uniform 2.8% change in water vapour has the same effect as a 100% change in CO2 concentration. (See the water vapour feedback section for further information.)
Optical depth is a measure how transparent the atmosphere is to longwave radiation. More greenhouse gases reduce the transparency of the atmosphere to longwave radiation from the surface.
See here for a discussion of CO2 versus water's contribution to the greenhouse effect.
Absorption Spectrum
The graph at the left shows the absorption spectra of the greenhouse gases. Where the black shading extends from 0 to 1, it indicates that at that wavelength the energy is fully absorbed. Adding more gas of that type will not absorb any more energy as that wavelength is fully saturated. Comparing the CO2 and H2O absorption spectra shows that much of the CO2 spectrum overlaps with that of water. Parts of the CO2 spectrum are already fully saturated. Adding more CO2 will result in ever diminishing effects as more of the available wavelengths become saturated. The temperature response to adding CO2 to the atmosphere depends on the amount of positive and negative feedbacks from water vapour, clouds and other sources. The temperature effect of increasing CO2 concentration is approximately logarithmic. This means if doubling the CO2 concentration from 300 ppm to 600 ppm, a 300 ppm increase, causes the temperature to rise by 1 oC, it would take another 600 ppm increase to add a further 1 oC temperature gain. See here.
CO2 
This is all the science I believe, look carefully at the charts and graphs they are convincing and this is the other side of the issue. My side complete with an alternative in cosmic rays this is the side I believe just try and convince me otherwise. If you could convince me I would believe but you cannot. I believe it is the sun along with cosmic rays that is the culprit not my car and my breath.
The Science in Summary
The history of the Earth tells us that the climate is always changing; from warm periods when the dinosaurs flourished, to the many ice ages when glaciers covered much of the land. Climate has always changed due to natural cycles without any help from people.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a political organization promoting a theory that recent minor temperature increases may be caused largely by man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. CO2 is an infrared gas, and increasing concentrations can potentially increase the average global temperature as the gas absorbs long-wave radiation from the Earth and emits the absorbed energy. However, the warming ability of CO2 is limited because much of the absorption spectrum is near or fully saturated. When CO2 concentrations were ten times greater than today the Earth was in the grips of one of the coldest ice ages. The climate system is dominated by strong negative feedbacks from clouds and water vapour which offsets the warming effects of CO2 emissions.
The history of climate and CO2 concentration shows that temperature changes precede CO2 changes and can not be a significant driver of climate. Temperature changes over different time scales have been well correlated to solar cycles, cosmic ray flux and cloud cover. Recent research shows that cosmic rays act as a catalyst to create low clouds, which cool the planet. When the Sun is more active, the solar wind repels the cosmic rays, reducing low cloud cover allowing the Sun to warm the planet.
Computer model results presented in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report predict that global warming will cause a distinctive temperature profile in the atmosphere of enhanced warming rate in the upper atmosphere at 8 to 12 km altitude over the tropics. The predicted temperature profile is the result of an expected increase in water vapour in the upper atmosphere which would amplify a CO2 induced warming three fold. The computer models are programmed to forecast a constant water vapor relative humidity with increasing CO2 resulting in a large water vapor feedback. Actual temperature data shows no such enhanced warming profile. Therefore, the comparison of observed data to computer models proves that no such water vapour induced warming amplification exists, so CO2 is not the main climate driver. In atmosphere layers near 8 km, the modelled temperature trend from 1980 is 200 to 400% higher than observed. Weather balloon data shows that specific humidity has fallen 9% since 1960 in the upper troposphere (400 mbar pressure level) where the models predict the greatest feedback. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere replaces a significant amount of water vapour, the most important greenhouse gas, resulting in only a small increase of the greenhouse effect.
An analysis of satellite data shows that clouds cause a strong negative feedback on temperature, but climate models assume that clouds cause a positive feedback. Modelers assumed that all cloud changes are caused by temperature changes which results in them inferring a positive feedback. But changing cloud cover can also cause temperature changes. Scientists can now separate these two effects. The correct analysis shows that clouds cause a strong negative feedback, so if temperatures increase, cloud cover increases, reflecting solar energy back to space and greatly reducing the warming effect of CO2 emissions.
Several planets and moons have warmed recently along with the Earth, confirming a natural sun caused warming trend. Over longer time periods, as the solar system moves in and out of the galactic arms the cosmic ray flux changes, causing ice ages and warm ages. A comparison of temperature and solar activity proxy data suggests that solar effects can explain at least 75% of the surface warming during the last 100 years.
CO2 is plant food and the increase in the CO2 concentration may have increased the global food production by 15% since 1950 resulting in huge benefits for people. For Canada, any CO2 warming effect would also benefit us by reducing our space heating costs and making a more pleasant climate.
The IPCC predicts that global average temperatures will increase by 0.17 to 0.38 oC per decade to the end of the century depending on the rate of CO2 growth in the atmosphere and other assumptions. The projections assume that no action is taken to limit CO2 emissions. However, these predictions are unrealistic because they falsely assume that the recent temperature changes are driven solely by CO2 and that the Sun has little effect on climate. A recent study of past climate change used by the IPCC has been shown to be wrong due to the use of a faulty algorithm, and the inappropriate selection of data.
The land temperature record is contaminated by the urban heat island effect. Fully correcting the land temperature record would reduce the warming trend from 1980 to 2002 by half. The IPCC historical CO2 record may be incorrect due to inappropriate adjustments to the ice core data, and ignoring direct historical CO2 measurements. The IPCC selects and adjusts data to conform to its CO2 warming hypothesis and ignores alternative climate theories. This is the wrong way to do science. Many scientists strongly disagree with the IPCC conclusions.
The sea level data shows no increase in the recent rate of sea level rise, and no such increase is expected over the next hundred years. There has been no detected increase in severe storms and there is no reason to expect an increase in the number or intensity of hurricanes resulting from any warming assumed to be from human caused CO2 emissions.
Any increase in temperatures due to human caused CO2 emissions will likely be beneficial to human health. The CO2 fertilization effect will increase the rate of forest growth and CO2 induced crop yield increases will reduce the pressures to cut down forests for farmland expansion. This will greatly benefit animals by slowing habitat destruction.
The benefits of CO2 emissions greatly exceed any likely harmful effects. Several authorities who have studied solar cycles have warned that the Earth may soon enter a cooling phase as the Sun is expected to become less active. The atmosphere may warm because of human activity, but if it does, the expected change is unlikely to be more than 0.5 C, and probably less, in the next 100 years.
Greenhouse Gas Effect
This graphic from Trenberth et al 2009 here, shows the exchange of energy among Space, the Sun, the atmosphere and the Earth. Greenhouse gases are primarily water vapour, carbon dioxide and ozone. Greenhouse gases are mostly transparent to incoming solar radiation, but absorb outgoing long wavelength radiation. The absorbed energy is then transferred to cooler molecules or radiated at longer wavelengths than the energy previously absorbed. This process makes the Earth warmer than it otherwise would be without the greenhouse gases (but with the atmosphere and clouds) by about 33 degrees Celsius.
Water vapour and clouds together account for over 70% of the total current greenhouse effect. However, in terms of changes to the greenhouse effect due to human activities, water vapour is generally considered a feedback and not a forcing agent. Computer simulations show the a uniform 2.8% change in water vapour has the same effect as a 100% change in CO2 concentration. (See the water vapour feedback section for further information.)
Optical depth is a measure how transparent the atmosphere is to longwave radiation. More greenhouse gases reduce the transparency of the atmosphere to longwave radiation from the surface.
See here for a discussion of CO2 versus water's contribution to the greenhouse effect.
Absorption Spectrum
The graph at the left shows the absorption spectra of the greenhouse gases. Where the black shading extends from 0 to 1, it indicates that at that wavelength the energy is fully absorbed. Adding more gas of that type will not absorb any more energy as that wavelength is fully saturated. Comparing the CO2 and H2O absorption spectra shows that much of the CO2 spectrum overlaps with that of water. Parts of the CO2 spectrum are already fully saturated. Adding more CO2 will result in ever diminishing effects as more of the available wavelengths become saturated. The temperature response to adding CO2 to the atmosphere depends on the amount of positive and negative feedbacks from water vapour, clouds and other sources. The temperature effect of increasing CO2 concentration is approximately logarithmic. This means if doubling the CO2 concentration from 300 ppm to 600 ppm, a 300 ppm increase, causes the temperature to rise by 1 oC, it would take another 600 ppm increase to add a further 1 oC temperature gain. See here.
CO2
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Greatcloud
Senior Member
- May 3, 2007
- 2,814
- 271
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
The fact that H2O does the same thing with sunlight to a greater degree then CO2. It absorbs sunlight and re-emits it back to Earth greater then CO2.
Sunlight emitting power H2O>CO2 =water vapor and clouds are the culprit in warming not CO2 which has a smaller scope of sun emitting power.
Adding CO2 to the atmosphere just replaces an equivalent amount of water vapour to maintain an almost constant greenhouse effect and has negligible effect on global temperatures.
Cloud Feedback
Climate models are limited by our understanding of cloud formation. While scientists have a basic understanding of cloud formation, the details controlling how bright they are, how dense and how large they become is poorly understood. We lack the detailed understanding of clouds required to make accurate climate models. Clouds have a major role in climate by reflecting sunlight back into space, trapping heat, and producing precipitation.
As the Earth warms, there is more evaporation from the oceans, therefore more water vapour in the atmosphere available for cloud formation. But low clouds reflect sunlight back into space resulting in a strong cooling effect, negating most of the initial temperature increase.
Researchers at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) reported in August 2007 that individual tropical warming cycles that served as proxies for global warming saw a decrease in the coverage of heat-trapping [high altitude] cirrus clouds, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in UAHuntsville's Earth System Science Center.
"All leading climate models forecast that as the atmosphere warms there should be an increase in high altitude cirrus clouds, which would amplify any warming caused by manmade greenhouse gases," he said. "That amplification is a positive feedback. What we found in month-to-month fluctuations of the tropical climate system was a strongly negative feedback. As the tropical atmosphere warms, cirrus clouds decrease. That allows more infrared heat to escape from the atmosphere to outer space."
"While low clouds have a predominantly cooling effect due to their shading of sunlight, most cirrus clouds have a net warming effect on the Earth," Spencer said. With high altitude ice clouds their infrared heat trapping exceeds their solar shading effect. If computer models incorporated this enhanced cooling effect due to such a reduction of high clouds, "it would reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent," Spencer said.
See the UAH News article here, and a report in ScienceDaily here. The paper abstract is here.
The modelers only do crude analysis of feedback from satellite data. They observe that low clouds tend to decrease with warming and assumed that the warming caused the low clouds to decrease. But cloud changes also cause temperatures to change. When a cloud moves to block the Sun, temperatures fall. The amount of clouds can change in response to a general ocean circulation change. So cloud changes are sometimes a cause of temperature change, and sometimes an effect of temperature change. The false assumption that all cloud changes are the effect of temperature changes led modelers to vastly over estimate the feedback from clouds.
Dr. Roy Spencer has developed a method to separate cause and effect of cloud variability. His technique is to plot quarterly average temperature and net flux readings from satellite data on a graph. These averages are plotted every day allowing the time evolution to be visualized. He found that the plots have two types of patterns a set of linear striations with a common slope, and superimposed slower random spiral patterns.
To understand these patterns, Spencer has developed a simple computer model where he can specify the amount of feedback, and can input radiative forcing that might be caused by random cloud changes. The model shows that the slope of the linear striations corresponds to the feedback in the climate system. These striations are due to changes in evaporation and precipitation which causes temperature changes. The temperature changes cause cloud changes, which is the cloud feedback signal we are looking for. The spiral patterns are caused by radiative forcing that might be due to changing the low cloud cover which varies the solar radiation warming the surface.
CO2
Last edited:
Upvote
0
It is true that as temperature rises so does water vapor. However, it is important to understand that water vapor is a feedback and not a forcing. The primary forcing presently in play is the increased CO2 content which has increased by 40% since 1880 and has been shown to be anthropogenic through isotopic signatures.
The entire system of Earth's water vapor turns over in just a week's time. If it stayed in the atmosphere like CO2 we would have a runaway greenhouse effect and your argument would be valid, but it does not.
Upvote
0
Of course I cannot convince you of anything because you are not willing to look at the evidence that shows that GCR's are not the current cause of climate change. The link to Real Climate discusses GCR's in detail and shows how they are not the current climate driver. Show me in the Real Climate article where you think they are wrong. Discuss the science.
--------
Footnote: Concerning your link to the paper I have only scanned it briefly but will look at it in greater depth. But just for openers, I'll be interested to see how GCR's are documented and quantified in the Phanerozoic. The only GCR fingerprints in the paleoclimate record come from cosmogenic radionuclides which have very short half-lives with respect to the overall Phanerozoic.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Greatcloud
Senior Member
- May 3, 2007
- 2,814
- 271
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
By quantity, there is much more water vapor than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Water vapor varies from a trace in extremely cold and dry air to about 4% in extremely warm and humid air. The average amount of water vapor in the atmosphere averaged for all locations is between 2 and 3%. Carbon dioxide levels are near 0.04%. That means there is more than 60 times as much water vapor in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide in average conditions. Both water vapor and Carbon dioxide are greenhouse gases. They both trap outgoing longwave radiation between the earth and the atmosphere. This has an effect of keeping temperatures warmer than they otherwise would be. Carbon dioxide is a more efficient greenhouse gas than water vapor when both are in equal quantities. However, they are not in equal quantities. There is much more water vapor than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In day to day weather forecasting, the greenhouse effect from water vapor is important while carbon dioxide is not. The atmospheric greenhouse effect from clouds and water vapor causes cloudy nights to be warmer than clear nights, all else being equal.
It is preposterous to not include H2O (water vapor) when judging weather it will be cold or warmer.
" There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. "
Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia,
and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service;
in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal
Upvote
0
T
TeddyReceptus
Guest
Water is a good greenhouse gas, but it can go up and down very easily so excess water in the atmosphere comes back out relatively quickly and easily. But excess carbon dioxide can't really come back out easily.
The carbon dioxide molecule that goes into the atmosphere can change places with another carbon dioxide molecule like from the ocean, but it's harder to pull that excess CO2 out of the atmosphere.
So when humans burn coal we put a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that isn't part of the natural amount going into and out of the atmosphere (I think its called the "carbon cycle") and it builds up in the atmosphere.
So water vapor and carbon dioxide are natural in our atmosphere but we are adding a lot more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than nature puts in and takes out.
I think this is why people call water a feedback instead of a forcing.
Upvote
0
Yes there is considerably more water vapor in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. It is also true that water vapor is a much more potent GHG than carbon dioxide. The point you are missing is that water vapor turns over very quickly and is therefore a feedback, not a driving force (forcing). Also, it is incorrect weather as climate. And you might want to re-think posting anything by Fred Singer, he's been incorrectly predicting an ice age for over 20 years now for a sundry of reasons all of which have never panned out.
------
Think of forcings as long term effects and feedbacks as short term effects though that is not the best definition. For instance CO2 can be both a forcing and a feedback. More on that later, haven't got time right now.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Greatcloud
Senior Member
- May 3, 2007
- 2,814
- 271
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of 30% from developed countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy. Can you drive your car 30% less, reduce your winter heating 30%? Pay 20-50% more for everything from automobiles to zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more sacrifices to come later.
Such drastic measures, even if imposed equally on all countries around the world, would reduce total human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by about 0.035%.
This is much less than the natural variability of Earth's climate system!http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.htm
Last edited:
Upvote
0
T
TeddyReceptus
Guest
I don't think this is a response to the fact of how carbon dioxide and water act in the atmosphere. This looks like an economic debate point.
I thought this was a debate on the science of greenhouse gas forcing and feedbacks and how water is different from carbon dioxide in this matter.
Upvote
0
Greatcloud
Senior Member
- May 3, 2007
- 2,814
- 271
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
I do not care about that debate look at this,this is more important then any small point in the AGW debate.
http://www.discerningtoday.org/scientists_disclaim.pdf
Upvote
0
T
TeddyReceptus
Guest
In Post 407 you seemed to care enough about water vapor and carbon dioxide to mention it and discuss it at length.
It is hard to debate someone who jumps from argument to argument based on where they get the least resistance. I think it's called nailing jello to a wall.
Upvote
0
Understand that the Koyto protocol and other such conferences are by and for policy makers, not the scientists. What ever they agree or disagree upon does not change the science.
Or you could look at it from a realistic perspective. For the past 850,000 years atmospheric CO2 has averaged less than 280 ppm. Since 1880 that atmospheric content has risen to over 390 ppm, a full 40% increase, which continues to increase at the rate of 2 ppm on average per year.
The link doesn't work. Nevertheless, NASA does not support by any stretch of the imagination that water vapor is causing the current warming trend.
Upvote
0
I hate to tell you but the Heartland Institute is a political think tank, the only thing they do with science is misrepresent it. Let's get off the ideological horse and discuss the actual science. And when are you going to realize that Fred Singer's ice age has not occurred all the years he has been saying it is. Conversely, GAT's continue to rise, global sea level continues to rise and both the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps continue loosing mass.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,435
- 52,722
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
May I ask where this water is coming from?
Let'em melt.
You do realize that if you have a glass of ice water, filled to the very rim, and the ice melts in the glass, that the water level will actually go down, don't you?
Upvote
0
T
TeddyReceptus
Guest
I believe that the important stuff is the ice on land melting into the water. So places like Greenland and western Antarctica land-glaciers melting are thought to be among the causes of increases in sea level.
Upvote
0
rambot
Senior Member
- Apr 13, 2006
- 29,741
- 16,854
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Greens
Seriously?
Ok.
The water is coming from ice that is sitting on land. I'm a little surprised this is an unknown to you.
Are you feeling competent in your discussion on natural phenomenon?
Upvote
0
Arctic, Greenland and Antarctic ice caps plus most of the worlds glaciers are in retreat.
Climate Change: Key Indicators
Do you have any idea how much of the world's population is within that melt zone, not to mention all the natural resources and commerce?
Yes, the glass will not over flow. But that is not the case where freshwater melt comes in contact with saltwater. That is where "AV science" takes a hike and "real science" kicks in.
Try this experiment: take a glass of water, put in 4 or 5 teaspoons of salt and dissolve the salt making "seawater". Add fresh water ice to where there is a slight overflow. Clean up the overflowed water and let the ice melt. Notice that there is more over flow. Or if you like just fill the glass partially and mark the level after adding the ice. Now look at the level where the initial mark was.
There are two things you are overlooking: (1) thermal expansion and (2) fresh water is less dense than sea water and therefore takes up more space than saltwater.
Real science rocks.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
