Does CO2 really drive global warming?

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

  1. gmb92

    gmb92 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,799
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Most "reasoned people" would not comically confuse Climate Sensitivity (the 3 C estimate) with observed change in global mean temperature over 40 years. I would suggest you start by looking up the definition of the former. You have a long way to go, and with the time you spend reading and propagating political opinion pieces on the topic, you might be able to learn quite a bit on the basics.
     
  2. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You know what is coming next, do you not??
    Wait for it.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    :twisted:
    "Awesome. Please provide the complete record of the ACTUAL LAB TEST(s) PROVING the thermodynamic effects ofwater vapor , peformed (sic) using ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC METHOD, utilizing a CONTROL, a VARIABLE, and VERIFIABLE, REPEATABLE RESULTS, not a make-believe "computer model".

    An ACTUAL ,LIVE GAS, baro/thermo test
    ."
     
  3. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How much water vapor is in the air at -18C when the warming initially started? You do not have to give an exact number. Rough guess would be fine.
     
  4. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You can easily calculate the answer from the Clausius–Clapeyron relation.

    Here this equation is for you to easily use.

    I wll not do your work for you.


     
  5. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We are waiting, Mannie.

    Have you completed the calculation?

    Actually, it is quite easy to do.

    Just follow this example.

     
  6. Grokmaster

    Grokmaster Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    55,099
    Likes Received:
    13,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Established LONG AGO.
    Here it is:


    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-thermal-properties-d_162.html


    Got anymore silliass crap to try to deflect from the complete failure to prove the primary edict of your entire wordlview?
     
  7. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Great response, Gork.

    Have you noticed the only two things the "warmies" in this group are really good at are subterfuge and deception?

    When it comes a basic knowledge of science and mathematics, they are very poor!

    [​IMG]
     
  8. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are mistaken, Jonsa.

    You have been duped and carefully led down a path by well-connected corporatists and hedge fund managers that stand to gain handsomely from these new and very misguided energy policies promulgated by the Obama administration.

    "When an issue like global warming is around for over twenty years, numerous agendas are developed to exploit the issue. The case of ENRON (a now bankrupt Texas energy firm) is illustrative in this respect.

    Before disintegrating in a pyrotechnic display of unscrupulous manipulation, ENRON had been one of the most intense lobbyists for Kyoto. It had hoped to become a trading firm dealing in carbon emission rights. This was no small hope. These rights are likely to amount to over a trillion dollars, and the commissions will run into many billions. Hedge funds are actively examining the possibilities; so was the late Lehman Brothers. Goldman Sachs has lobbied extensively for the ‘cap and trade’ bill, and is well positioned to make billions.

    The sale of indulgences is already in full swing with organizations selling offsets to one’s carbon footprint while sometimes acknowledging that the offsets are irrelevant. The possibilities for corruption are immense. Archer Daniels Midland (America’s largest agribusiness) has successfully lobbied for ethanol requirements for gasoline, and the resulting demand for ethanol may already be contributing to large increases in corn prices and associated hardship in the developing world (not to mention poorer car performance).

    And finally, there are the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed corporatists to convince them that in accepting the unproven view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence, righteousness and virtue. Instead, they are changing our national energy policy for the benefit of corporations and hedge fund managers that stand to gain handsomely from these new and perhaps misguided policies [promulgated by the Obama administration].

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100072360/warmists-we-cant-win-the-game-so-lets-change-the-rules."
     
  9. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    James

    If you are linking to a picture in "photo bucket" you should give the origin of the picture as a hyperlink

    If however, you link directly to the source as many of us do - then the hyperlink is not required because it is embedded and easily visible when you hit the quote button

    You should also be hyperlinking to the source of your material - if you have a difficulty with this please contact a moderator - this is not just about the rules of the board or even of academic veracity but about copyright
     
  10. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks!

    I thought I did that, but I guess I did not ...

    Here is the link for the NASA GISS global temperature chart.

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20120119/

    NASA attributes most of the global warming to natural causes (increasing solar activity, El Niño); not necessarily to man-made influences.

     
  11. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    OOOPS! Failure to spot sarcasm

    Mannie was making the parodying the proclivity to post "There is no proof that CO2 affects the atmosphere!!"
     
  12. deanberryministries

    deanberryministries Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2012
    Messages:
    272
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Perhaps those f--king chemtrails are causing global warming. Why don't all you Patriots tell me what you've uncovered about them?
     
  13. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    No that is not what it says

    It does not attribute "most" of the warming to natural causes

    He is saying that if you think we have had it hot recently just wait until this next sunspot cycle kicks in and the El nino swings back into force

    In other words - you ain't seen nothing yet

    Expect more heat waves and more deaths from same - as well as more crop failures

    Yeah! Global warming is a real farmer's friend - talk about your "droughts and flooding rains" easy to grow crops when you have to either watch them die from drought or be washed away in a flood
     
  14. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Bird,

    I would like to read the article in which this following chart appeared.

    [​IMG]

    How do I find it?

    This is the only incomplete reference that is available.

    It only shows the chart and not the original reference from which the chart was obtained.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/co2_temp_1964_2008.gif

    Here is the post in which this artice has appeared. Please see post #181.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/234951-does-co2-really-drive-global-warming-19.html

    Thanks!
     
  15. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Ha-Ha!

    Actually, my post was meant to answer sarcasm with sarcasm!

    Sorry I was being too subtle! I must be less subtle next time!


    [​IMG]
     
  16. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Actually, this will become the next assault on the global environment by the "warmies".

    Obama will give them billions of dollars to study clouds as a possible source of global warming! After all, on a cloudless night, the earth cools very rapidly.

    When the sky is very overcast, the nighttime temperature remain much warmer!

    Barack Obama: "We must study this problem of why clouds keep the earth warm!"


    [​IMG]
     
  17. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Another non-answer and another point that went right over your head. Where is that common sense that you have been accusing others of not having.
    if the earth is at -18C, where is the water vapor coming from.
    At what temperature does water freeze? At what temperature does salt water freeze? At -18c, what state will water be in? Do you need equations to tell you the answer? How about a little common sense?
     
  18. MannieD

    MannieD New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,127
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sure. I do not see any " ACTUAL LAB TEST(s) PROVING the thermodynamic effect".
    All I see is a bunch of values. I am sure I could come up with the some values for CO2.



     
  19. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,871
    Likes Received:
    73,626
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm

    sceptical science is searchable - I typed in 1964 and Voila!!
     
  20. cooky

    cooky New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2011
    Messages:
    439
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Being that you provide nothing to support your claims I view them as nothing more than your opinion. You did not explain why you believe that particular science paper is worthless garbage science.

    Not suprisingly, your opinion regarding the Kuwait oil fires is contrary to a paper published in Science concerning the event in question.

    Airborne studies of smoke from the Kuwait oil fires were carried out in the spring of 1991 when ∼4.6 million barrels of oil were burning per day. Emissions of sulfur dioxide were ∼57% of that from electric utilities in the United States; emissions of carbon dioxide were ∼2% of global emissions; emissions of soot were ∼3400 metric tons per day. The smoke absorbed ∼75 to 80% of the sun's radiation in regions of the Persian Gulf. However, the smoke probably had insignificant global effects because (i) particle emissions were less than expected, (ii) the smoke was not as black as expected, (iii) the smoke was not carried high in the atmosphere, and (iv) the smoke had a short atmospheric residence time.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/256/5059/987.short

    While I know almost nothing about you I'm quite familiar with the journal Science. While I can't be certain, I'm quite positive Science is a more credible source of information than you. Is there any reason for me to think otherwise?
     
  21. TheTaoOfBill

    TheTaoOfBill Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    13,146
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    48
    It is. But that doesn't have to do with my post.

    Arguing that CO2 does not heat up the Earth is like arguing gravity doesn't exist. CO2 along with every greenhouse gas has physical properties that have been proven in scientific experiments to include trapping and reflecting heat.

    You don't get more scientific fact than the scientific fact that CO2 contributes to global warming. Anyone that says otherwise loses all credibility in scientific discussions.
     
  22. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The artice in Science Magazine is indeed correct, cooky.

    I have friends who were in Kuwait at the time these fires occurred. They said the desert sands were actually covered with layers and layers of black soot from all the carbon that was released by the oil well fires!

    There was no permanent damage done to the earth's environment by these oil fires where 4.6-5.2 million barrels of oil were burning per day. If you go to Kuwait today, there is no evidence these oil fires ever occurred.

    Likewise, there will be no permanent damage done to the earth's environment by our continued use and combustion of fossil fuels.

    The CO2 concentration in the earth’s atmosphere is, at most, 390 ppm. Water vapor is a more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Water has more absorption bands and deeper absorption bands in the infrared than does CO2.

    The average concentration of water vapor in the earth's environment is 10,000 ppm to 15,000 ppm, depending on the relative humidity levels at the surface location these measurements are made.

    The"warmies" have a political agenda. If they had a true scientific agenda, they would be more concerned about water vapor (10,000 ppm, many IR absorption bands) as a powerful greenhouse gas than they are about the effects of carbon dioxide (390 ppm, two IR absorption bands) as a weaker greenhouse gas!


    "SCIENCE + POLITICS = 99% PURE POLITICS!"
     
  23. James Cessna

    James Cessna New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    13,369
    Likes Received:
    572
    Trophy Points:
    0

    I should also note the concentrations of water vapor and carbon dioxide we have today are good for our planet. It is a well-established fact that, "Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state."
     
  24. cooky

    cooky New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2011
    Messages:
    439
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Can you support this assertion with any scientific papers? I find it strange that the papers published in the most prestigious journals i.e. Nature, Science and PNAS explicitly disagree with your opinion concerning the impact of anthropogenic CO2 on the climate. Why do you think that is?

    You admit that CO2 causes radiative forcing that warms the planet yet you deny that increasing the concentration of CO2 does not effect the climate. How can you believe both?
     
    Bowerbird and (deleted member) like this.
  25. TheTaoOfBill

    TheTaoOfBill Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    13,146
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Water Vapor is NOT a stronger greenhouse gas.
     

Share This Page