+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 18 of 32 FirstFirst ... 814151617181920212228 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 311

Thread: Does CO2 really drive global warming?

  1. Default

    "Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. 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."

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.short

    The above quote was taken from a 2010 paper published in Science- arguably the highest impact scientific journal in publication. Those who take the time to study the current primary scientific discourse will find that the ACC hypothesis is almost universally supported by the data and conclusions published in reputable scientific journals.

  2. Prosper.com, finance, financial, investing, lending, borrowing, banking, credit card, payday, borrowers, lenders, debt consolidation, Prosper, investment, personal loans, personal loan, investors, investment opportunities, debt consolidation

  3. Default

    I think more research is needed, maybe it will just postpone the next ice age

    another question, if the earth is like a well oiled machine, what happens when it's not so well oiled?
    Last edited by FreshAir; Mar 03 2012 at 03:20 AM.
    ~
    belief is what is important, not so much what you believe, for instance, an ordinary sugar pill without belief helps no one, but with belief it can cure your ills and it can be quite the amazing little pill - the magic really comes from within - FreshAir
    ~

  4. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cooky View Post

    "Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. 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."

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.short

    The above quote was taken from a 2010 paper published in Science- arguably the highest impact scientific journal in publication. Those who take the time to study the current primary scientific discourse will find that the ACC hypothesis is almost universally supported by the data and conclusions published in reputable scientific journals.
    This is wonderful information, cooky.

    thanks for sharing.

    The "warmies" in our group often overlook these very important scientific facts.

    "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."
    Last edited by James Cessna; Mar 03 2012 at 06:09 AM.
    James Cessna

    "If you give a man a fish (socialism), you feed him for a day. It you teach a man to fish (capitalism), you feed him and the people he employs for a lifetime."

  5. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bowerbird View Post

    Do you want to correct Wiki too - because that is where I got the quote from

    Once again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_...9;s_atmosphere

    And I think you better check your own math

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parts-per_notation

    The actual problem arises in Grokkies failure to define what he is talking about. as commonly gases are either stated as PPM or percentages
    You are much too trusting, bird.

    Wiki is often wrong about a lot of things!

    If you knew how to do the math you would know my answer is indeed correct
    .
    James Cessna

    "If you give a man a fish (socialism), you feed him for a day. It you teach a man to fish (capitalism), you feed him and the people he employs for a lifetime."

  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rapunzel View Post

    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.
    You are indeed correct, Rapunzel.
    James Cessna

    "If you give a man a fish (socialism), you feed him for a day. It you teach a man to fish (capitalism), you feed him and the people he employs for a lifetime."

  7. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cooky View Post
    "Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. 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."

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.short

    The above quote was taken from a 2010 paper published in Science- arguably the highest impact scientific journal in publication. Those who take the time to study the current primary scientific discourse will find that the ACC hypothesis is almost universally supported by the data and conclusions published in reputable scientific journals.
    Your quote is a failure from the beginning and not worth the paper it is written on. It is an example of garbage science. This ample evidence proves one thing for you and the opposite thing for me and the 3rd thing for my dog. All 3 are equally right.

    The key word is experiment.

    Evidence proves and convinces.
    Experiment demonstrates.

    The experiment has demonstrated:

    1.CO2 has been pumped by humans like no tomorrow.
    2. climate has not changed.
    3. evidence has failed as it was expected.

    Put it on record and move on.


    1. oil in Kuwait was burned like the hell is coming..
    2. no impact
    3. evidence has failed as it was expected.

    Put it on record and move on.



    1. oil was spilled in golf of mexico, so fish couldn't swim, birds couldn't fly, the bottom was covered with tar
    2. no impact, bilogical life has been rejuvenated.
    3. evidence has failed as it was expected.


    Put it on record and move on.


    science is an EXPERIMENTAL activity.


    However you try to pervert it, no matter how you try to redifine it, no matter how many court cases you win, no matter how much of evidence you gather, no matter if all scientists fall into heresy, and no real scientist is left, you are destined to fail.
    Last edited by _Inquisitor_; Mar 03 2012 at 07:49 AM.
    Hypotheses non fingo

  8. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by livefree View Post

    Most of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from natural sources of CO2 emissions that were almost exactly matched and balanced by natural forms of carbon sequestration for at least the last 400,000 years, keeping CO2 levels varying between about 180ppm during the glacial periods to about 280ppm during the interglacials. Humanity has taken millions of years of natural carbon sequestration that got buried and turned into oil, coal and natural gas, and burned it off into the air in just a century or so and this has raised CO2 levels to about 390ppm (so far and still climbing fast), an almost 40% increase (so far) over the highest levels the world ever saw all through the last four 'ice ages'. Analysis of the carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2 reveal the petroleum origin of the excess CO2. The extra CO2 has definitely come from the "combustion and use of fossil fuels, such as coal, natural gas, gasoline and aviaiton fuel, as energy sources".


    Ice core data for the past 400,000 years. Note length of glacial cycles averages ~100,000 years.
    Blue curve is temperature, green curve is CO2, and red curve is windblown glacial dust (loess).
    Today's date is on the left side of the graph.
    (source: Paleoclimatology)


    MOD EDIT
    Ha-Ha!

    You have omitted the most important part from these discussions.

    Also, please provide an accurate reference for your illustrations. The one you have included does not work.

    "Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. 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."

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.full
    James Cessna

    "If you give a man a fish (socialism), you feed him for a day. It you teach a man to fish (capitalism), you feed him and the people he employs for a lifetime."

  9. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by James Cessna View Post
    This is wonderful information, cooky.

    thanks for sharing.

    The "warmies" in our group often overlook these very important scientific facts.

    "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."
    So CO2 does warm the climate. Was that really so hard to admit, after all the previous gibberish?

    Then the next question is how much, an answer that can be found in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, not kook blogs or opinion pieces in the WSJ, British tabloids, or {insert opinion site of choice here}. Using a variety of analysis methods, including study of the instrumental record, volcanic activity, Nino events, proxy records over the millenium, and long-term paleoclimate data, the evidence all converges with a best estimate of close to 3 C with high confidence extending to a 1.5-4.5 C range, with the highest likelilhood in the middle of that range (reinforced by the fact that all lines of evidence converge around the middle).

    www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf

    A very recent study ups the range slightly to 1.8 to 4.9 C, assigning a 95% confidence interval, with again, the best estimate close to 3 C.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/201...JD016620.shtml
    "To the average American who’s struggling, we’re in some other stratosphere. We’re the party of Big Business and Big Oil and the rich." - Sen. Olympia Snowe (R)

    Budget surplus inherited by Bush: $236 billion (CBO, 2000)
    Budget deficit inherited by Obama: $1,667 billion (CBO projection, 3/2009)

  10. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gmb92 View Post
    So CO2 does warm the climate. Was that really so hard to admit, after all the previous gibberish?

    Then the next question is how much, an answer that can be found in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, not kook blogs or opinion pieces in the WSJ, British tabloids, or {insert opinion site of choice here}. Using a variety of analysis methods, including study of the instrumental record, volcanic activity, Nino events, proxy records over the millenium, and long-term paleoclimate data, the evidence all converges with a best estimate of close to 3 C with high confidence extending to a 1.5-4.5 C range, with the highest likelilhood in the middle of that range (reinforced by the fact that all lines of evidence converge around the middle).

    www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf

    A very recent study ups the range slightly to 1.8 to 4.9 C, assigning a 95% confidence interval, with again, the best estimate close to 3 C.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/201...JD016620.shtml
    A)

    Your quote is a failure from the beginning and not worth the paper it is written on. It is an example of garbage science. all lines of evidence prove one thing for you and the opposite thing for me and the 3rd thing for my dog. All 3 are equally right. Your source is as good as Disney Channel, both use computer generated animations and can show whatever they want to show. Of course, WJ is more credible than Disney.

    The key word is experiment.

    Evidence
    proves and convinces.
    Experiment demonstrates.

    The experiment has demonstrated:

    1.CO2 has been pumped by humans like no tomorrow.
    2. climate has not changed.
    3. evidence has failed as it was expected.

    Put it on record and move on.


    1. oil in Kuwait was burned like the hell is coming..
    2. no impact
    3. evidence has failed as it was expected.

    Put it on record and move on.



    1. oil was spilled in golf of mexico, so fish couldn't swim, birds couldn't fly, the bottom was covered with tar
    2. no impact, bilogical life has been rejuvenated.
    3. evidence has failed as it was expected.


    Put it on record and move on.


    science is an EXPERIMENTAL activity.


    However you try to pervert it, no matter how you try to redifine it, no matter how many court cases you win, no matter how much of evidence you gather, no matter if all scientists fall into heresy, and no real scientist is left, you are destined to fail.


    B) None of the sources of yours disprove science mag article.

    C)
    None of them demonstrates CO2 does warm the climate. Your opening sentence has nothing behind it.

    D)
    1. Have you ever heard that heat flows only from a colder body to a warmer body in nature?
    2.Do you know that it is a fundamental law of Nature?
    3. Do you that it does not need or uses or refers to any evidence, it has no evidence.
    4. In order to warm climate, according to this law, CO2 has to be warmer than climate, and it has to be cooling while warming climate. Obviously such happening neither has been observed nor makes any sense by composition. Your opening claim is not English. It is a big FAIL from the begining.
    Last edited by _Inquisitor_; Mar 03 2012 at 09:38 AM.
    Hypotheses non fingo

  11. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by _Inquisitor_ View Post
    A)

    Your quote is a failure from the beginning and not worth the paper it is written on. It is an example of garbage science. all lines of evidence prove one thing for you and the opposite thing for me and the 3rd thing for my dog. All 3 are equally right. Your source is as good as Disney Channel, both use computer generated animations and can show whatever they want to show. Of course, WJ is more credible than Disney.
    Summary: gibberish.

    The key word is experiment.

    Evidence proves and convinces.
    Experiment demonstrates.

    The experiment has demonstrated:

    1.CO2 has been pumped by humans like no tomorrow.
    2. climate has not changed.
    #1 is correct. #2 is not. Really no point in carrying on.

    Last edited by gmb92; Mar 03 2012 at 09:46 AM.
    "To the average American who’s struggling, we’re in some other stratosphere. We’re the party of Big Business and Big Oil and the rich." - Sen. Olympia Snowe (R)

    Budget surplus inherited by Bush: $236 billion (CBO, 2000)
    Budget deficit inherited by Obama: $1,667 billion (CBO projection, 3/2009)

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 18 of 32 FirstFirst ... 814151617181920212228 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. I agree with Global Warming SCIENCE, but not Global Warmign POLICY, they are not same
    By SiliconMagician in forum Political Opinions & Beliefs
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: Aug 03 2014, 05:18 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: Oct 23 2011, 08:45 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks