Does CO2 really drive global warming?

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by James Cessna, Feb 25, 2012.

  1. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    568
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Many people today are under the incorrect assumption that carbon dioxide is the principal absorbing gas in the earth's atmosphere, and that it alone is responsible for global warming.

    They further assume the prinicpal source of trace amounts (350-400 ppm) of carbon dioxde we find in our atmosphere is principally from the combustion and use of fossil fuels, such as coal, natural gas, gasoline and aviaiton fuel, as energy sources.

    If you examine the science both rationally and objectively, you will discover that these assumptions are not only misleasing, but they are actually
    incorrect.

    From the discussions referenced below, if you measure and study the molar chemistry and physical composition of our atmosphere, you will discover the molar concentration of CO2 is most always in a range of 350–400 ppm. "Water vapor, on the other hand, is much more abundant and has a very large variation in comparison to the concentrations of carbon dioxide. For example, the weight ratio of water to (dry) air almost all regions of the lower atmosphere is ~0.0065, or roughly 10,500 ppm. "Compared with CO2, this puts water, on average, at 25–30 times the (molar) concentration of the CO2, but it can sometimes range during very dry or very humid occasions from a 1:1 ratio to >100:1."

    What many people today do not realize is water is a very strongly absorbing greenhouse gas, even more so than carbon dioxide. This scientific fact can easily be summarized by saying that "water accounts, on average, for >95% of the radiative absorption. And, because of the variation in the absorption due to water variation, anything future increases in CO2 might do, water will already have done."

    The next question is does the combustion and use of fossil fuels, such as coal, natural gas, gasoline and aviaiton fuel, as energy sources contribute substantially to the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere?

    Quoting from the report below, "In 1995, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) data on the carbon balance showed ~90 gigatons (Gt) of carbon in annual quasi-equilibrium exchange between sea and atmosphere, and an additional 60-Gt exchange between vegetation and atmosphere, giving a total of ~150 Gt (3).

    The next matter is the impact of fossil fuel combustion. "Returning to the IPCC data and putting a rational variation as noise of ~5 Gt on those numbers, this float is on the order of the additional—almost trivial (<5%)—annual contribution of 5–6 Gt from combustion of fossil fuels".

    Conclusion: These facts means that carbon dioxide produced by fossil fuel combustion is very small when compared to the exchange between the sea and atmosphere, and between vegetation and atmosphere. Furthermore, because of its small (trace) concentrations in our atmosphere, CO2 cannot be expected to have any significant influence on the global warming we have experienced from causes that are purely natural in their origin.

     
    Tipper101 and (deleted member) like this.
  2. Tipper101

    Tipper101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    Messages:
    2,529
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The U.S. is but a fraction of mankind's Co2 emissions. Mankind's C02 emmissions are but a fraction of the word's C02 emissions. C02 is but a fraction of the total greenhouse effect. And the greehouse effect is but one variable in what affects the world's climate at any one time.

    Unfortunately for your post, it's too late. I've already been convinced that a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction is having a significant enough impact to pose apocalyptic consequences to our world and that this country needs to desperately throw money that it doesn't have in order to transform this economy from one that clearly works into one that we hope will work...somewhere down the road...we don't really know when....we just know we need to do it...or else....

    Sorry, but i'm firmly on the bandwagon of deliberately hurting this country based upon a dubious interpretation of science. I'm with ya Obama! Hurray for Algae!
     
  3. Dingo44

    Dingo44 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    661
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    But raising taxes and fees to save the world makes me feel so fuzzy inside and lets me know that I'm a better person than everyone else because I care.
     
  4. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    22,872
    Likes Received:
    2,614
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've been wondering about this for years and still have not gotten an answer, but if water vapor is the primary cause of warming, why aren't we attacking clouds?
     
  5. Bondo

    Bondo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2010
    Messages:
    2,627
    Likes Received:
    93
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ayuh,.... Right,.... Another Tax, by a prettier name.....
     
  6. Proud Progressive

    Proud Progressive New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2011
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Morons constantly looking for simple answers to complex problems.
     
  7. sherp

    sherp New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,018
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That is exactly how I feel about the plastic water bottles. Saving them for recycling makes me a better person too.
     
  8. Rapunzel

    Rapunzel New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2010
    Messages:
    25,154
    Likes Received:
    1,106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Me Too, just for the fact that I pay taxes.
     
  9. Rapunzel

    Rapunzel New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2010
    Messages:
    25,154
    Likes Received:
    1,106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Global warming is a farce. It's part of the leftist loser's religion along with green energy. Making money off of it is just another Ponzi scheme.
     
  10. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    35,490
    Likes Received:
    11,428
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This one is Japanese and it is a little dated because China has now taken over from the USA but I wanted to show that it is not all about America
    [​IMG]

    Now this is a little better and shows where everything is going and coming
    [url]http://www.gfdl.noaa.go
    v/pix/research/climate_ecosystems/AnthropogenicCarbonCycleBox2.png[/url]

    Notice the bit about vegetation absorbing CO2 - and remember we are stripping this planet of trees. About 1/5 of global warming is down to tree loss

    OOOOOOOOOPS!

    Here is another picture

    [​IMG]

    And this is where I got that last picture - and it even explains everything nice and simply
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
     
  11. Panzerkampfwagen

    Panzerkampfwagen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    11,570
    Likes Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Add more CO2 to the atmosphere and you cause warming. Warming causes what to evaporate?

    Anyone?

    Anyone?
     
  12. Colonel K

    Colonel K Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    9,505
    Likes Received:
    295
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Three denialist cult mantras in one post. How economical of energy and thought.
     
  13. Rapunzel

    Rapunzel New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2010
    Messages:
    25,154
    Likes Received:
    1,106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hey, I'd be happy to get off oil if there was a viable affordable alternative, but so far there is not. In the mean time I do my part to keep America as clean as I can, but it's not because of global warming, it's because it's the right thing to do.
     
  14. kenrichaed

    kenrichaed Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2011
    Messages:
    8,539
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Its unclear how much impact Co2 has in regards to warming. There is a direct correlation between Co2 levels and temperature however. They almost mirror each other exactly.

    Seems like there is some relevance in their relationship.
     
  15. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    35,490
    Likes Received:
    11,428
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can make the same argument of the atmosphere


    But no-one is asking you to "give up oil" what we are asking people to do is to CONSERVE - that also means $aving you money

    What if America decides that the best way to reduce it's carbon footprint were to make buildings more energy efficient so the government decided to subsidise cladding and insulation - would that not be a good idea?
     
  16. Rapunzel

    Rapunzel New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2010
    Messages:
    25,154
    Likes Received:
    1,106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, because I don't believe in subsidizing. We subsidize to much crap. The government has no (*)(*)(*)(*)ing idea what it is doing. They waste more money than they spend wisely and that's an understatement.

    Get rid of the 100 or so unconstitutional agencies and we'll talk.
     
  17. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    568
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are correct, kenrichaed.

    But the question is do the rising levels of carbon dioxide drive up the temperature, or do higher global temperatures drive up the trace CO2 levels in our natural environment?

    In the past, these have been evidence of a time lag between higher global temperatures and later, an increase in carbon dioxide levels on a global scale.

    The theory is as the sea surface warms, more and more CO2 that is dissolved in sea water escapes into the earth's global atmosphere. By the way, it is a well established scientific fact that cold sea water contains much higher concentrations of dissolved carbon dioxide gas than does warm sea water.

     
  18. Radio Refugee

    Radio Refugee New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2008
    Messages:
    24,800
    Likes Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is the foundational beauty of this 'science'. There exists no definitive work where the null hypothesis that CO2 DOES NOT drive it has been rejected in a rigorous fashion.

    It's built on rent seekers and totalitarians looking to increase their power and influence, not honest and conclusive science.
     
  19. Radio Refugee

    Radio Refugee New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2008
    Messages:
    24,800
    Likes Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Were this clear we'd have a working climate model. We do not. Q.E.D. your correlation is of no predictive value, lake every model so far.
     
  20. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    568
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So is it your scientific opinion that the rising levels of carbon dioxide drive up the global temperature, or do higher temperatures drive up the trace CO2 levels in our natural environment?

    In the past, these have been evidence of a time lag between higher global temperatures and a later increase in carbon dioxide levels on a global scale.
     

Share This Page