Global Warming

[Mr.Vicchio]

It says on there it's a table without the numbers put out that way by the gov.

[Pooeypants]

Actually, it says and I quote;

The following table was constructed from data published by the U.S. Department of Energy (1) and other sources, summarizing concentrations of the various atmospheric greenhouse gases. Because some of the concentrations are very small the numbers are stated in parts per billion. DOE chose to NOT show water vapor as a greenhouse gas!

Now I can't find those numbers from the DoE link, they stated it's also drawn from other sources but where exactly?

[atheist]

Mr.Vicchio is basing this argument, and one that says a lot, on only ONE source. From this fact, I don't think his argument is credible. Find other sources that correlate to this website's claims, from -credible- websites (aka one that's been reviewed by other scientists), and then maybe someone will believe it.

In college, when one writes reports, getting sources off the web from websites like vicchio's is a big no-no (in fact, it's not allowed). What you want to use are journal articles that have been peer reviewed, because those are one of the most reliable resources out there that are accessible to the public. Usually, when I write reports, I only get to use websources like that to cite pictures/images.

Something that's published is highly more likely to be credible than something written off on the web.

Additionally, those graphics are pretty poor in quality. In fact, I could probably duplicate something that looks similar to those on an old microsoft spreadsheet program. Not to base things on looks, but if that website's study is true to its word, and probably spent a ton of money gathering the information, you'd think their graphics to display the crust of their work would be better presented.

Overall, I think somebody's been duped.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Whatever atheist, I've posted from numerous sources, everyone Pooey plays the "It's too simple, laymans terms." as if that negates the point being made.

I chose this particular site for it's simplicity so that even people like you could get it. But you miss the point, I dare say willingly.

[cali2back131]

I think planet earth is like a living criature that remains tame if not disturbed,but when chemicals like co2 and other contaminants are released to the atmosphere,the beast wakes up,and fight back us,.....I think our planet have always been alive and healthy when humans not even though to dwell it.......so the best solution to all those issues is to stop releasing contaminants to the atmosphere and soil,the nature is wise enough to take everything under to control,get rid of all kind of contaminants and reach the previous balance that prevaided.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Pooeypants Actually, it says and I quote;Now I can't find those numbers from the DoE link, they stated it's also drawn from other sources but where exactly?

OK. I'll try to help out here. But, of course we layman (Sigma Pi Sigma, 1986) may have to go for simplified answers.

Physics World, May 2003, "Water vapour is responsible for 70% of the known absorption of incoming sunlight, particularly in the infrared region."

Nova, "water vapor can comprise 60 to 70 percent of the greenhouse effect. Next in line, carbon dioxide contributes an additional 25 percent"

Some random web page, "Water vapor (H2O) causes about 60% of Earth's naturally-occurring greenhouse effect. Other gases influencing the effect include carbon dioxide (CO2) (about 26%), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and ozone (O3) (about 8%)."

Some weather dude page, "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. "

and on, and on, and on ...

But, of course, this oversimplifies what is happening in our atmosphere just as much as concentrating on CO2 as a greenhouse gas does. Greater concentrations of water vapor will also result in greater cloud cover. But, as has recently been pointed out, cloud cover is influenced by cosmic radiation, which fluctuates as a function of solar activity. Solar activity, along with affecting cloud cover by affecting cosmic radiation, also impacts the solar thermal flux which affects the temperature of the Earth directly, along with increasing the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere which increases the greenhouse effect and, at the same time, influencing cloud cover, which is affected by cosmic radiation, and, again, on and on and on ...

The biggest point would be that no one really knows for sure what is happening in our atmosphere and it would be highly irresponsible to take action that would drastically impact the world's economy on incomplete information and uncertainty.

Keith

[Nono]

Quote by: KH The biggest point would be that no one really knows for sure what is happening in our atmosphere and it would be highly irresponsible to take action that would drastically impact the world's economy on incomplete information and uncertainty.

Given that by far most of the scientific community now accepts human responsibility for much of the warming trend (without claiming that they "know for sure" -- and what would that mean scientifically?) it would be highly irresponsible not to take action to curb that effect.

What's more important, your precious economic indicators or the envrironment's compatibility with your life?

No one really "knows for sure" the extent to which heavy smoking affects health either. So, whatever you do, don't take any Chicken Little measures that might affect the tobacco companies' profit margins.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Nono Given that by far most of the scientific community now accepts human responsibility for much of the warming trend (without claiming that they "know for sure" -- and what would that mean scientifically?) it would be highly irresponsible not to take action to curb that effect. What's more important, your precious economic indicators or the envrironment's compatibility with your life? No one really "knows for sure" the extent to which heavy smoking affects health either. So, whatever you do, don't take any Chicken Little measures that might affect the tobacco companies' profit margins.

Some of the proposals that have been given have the potential to virtually destroy industrial civilization as we know it. Given the previous positions of many environmentalists, that may well be their goal.

I don't accept that goal nor accept the justification to use force and violence through government activity to destroy civilization as we know it.

Or even to curtail the entire world's economy. Please see my "at any cost" thread for further discussion on this subject.

Keith

[Mr.Vicchio]

Quote by: cali2back131 I think planet earth is like a living criature that remains tame if not disturbed,but when chemicals like co2 and other contaminants are released to the atmosphere,the beast wakes up,and fight back us,.....I think our planet have always been alive and healthy when humans not even though to dwell it.......so the best solution to all those issues is to stop releasing contaminants to the atmosphere and soil,the nature is wise enough to take everything under to control,get rid of all kind of contaminants and reach the previous balance that prevaided.

You do know that a Volcanic eruption puts more C02 into the air then man does in a year right?

[Technosoul]

Some of the reasons for not accepting the facts presented by the "Concerned Scientists" group are not about perceaved faults in their theory but with the effects on what solving the problem would manifest.

(1) The governmental regulation of businesses and transportaion.

(2) The reduction in oil useage.

(3) The poltical humbling of admitting Al Gore was right.

(4) The economic impact of the logical enforcement of environmental ideas.

(5) The humbling of capitalists to the opinons of "tree hugging" environmentalists.

(6) The idea that saving the planet from Global Warming would effect socialism.

(7) The fear that progress might be hampered.

(8) The religious concept that "nature does not matter" only our salvation for the next life (heaven). And the religious idea that the Bible predicted this as it is getting close to doomsday for earthly sinners anyway.

(9) The anti-scientific attitudes of religious groups.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger OK. I'll try to help out here. But, of course we layman (Sigma Pi Sigma, 1986) may have to go for simplified answers. Physics World, May 2003, "Water vapour is responsible for 70% of the known absorption of incoming sunlight, particularly in the infrared region." Nova, "water vapor can comprise 60 to 70 percent of the greenhouse effect. Next in line, carbon dioxide contributes an additional 25 percent" Some random web page, "Water vapor (H2O) causes about 60% of Earth's naturally-occurring greenhouse effect. Other gases influencing the effect include carbon dioxide (CO2) (about 26%), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and ozone (O3) (about 8%)." Some weather dude page, "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. " and on, and on, and on ... But, of course, this oversimplifies what is happening in our atmosphere just as much as concentrating on CO2 as a greenhouse gas does. Greater concentrations of water vapor will also result in greater cloud cover. But, as has recently been pointed out, cloud cover is influenced by cosmic radiation, which fluctuates as a function of solar activity. Solar activity, along with affecting cloud cover by affecting cosmic radiation, also impacts the solar thermal flux which affects the temperature of the Earth directly, along with increasing the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere which increases the greenhouse effect and, at the same time, influencing cloud cover, which is affected by cosmic radiation, and, again, on and on and on ... The biggest point would be that no one really knows for sure what is happening in our atmosphere and it would be highly irresponsible to take action that would drastically impact the world's economy on incomplete information and uncertainty. Keith

I'm asking about the exact numbers of table 1 from Mr Vicchio's source.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio You do know that a Volcanic eruption puts more C02 into the air then man does in a year right?

You're lying again. The steady rise of 100ppm since the industrial revolution is ours.
Remember this graph? Don't tell me that no volcanoes have erupted in the past 40 years around the world.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Pooeypants You're lying again. The steady rise of 100ppm since the industrial revolution is ours. Remember this graph? Don't tell me that no volcanoes have erupted in the past 40 years around the world.

OK. Since no one seems to want to discuss the idea in my thread ...

Have you, personally, done everything you possibly could to address the issue?

I could easily design a 700 sq ft house suitable for the average family of four that is effectively self sufficient in terms of energy. Using solar panels, wind generation, 12volt electrical systems, small propane gas appliances, some motion sensors to ensure electrical use only when needed, etc., etc. I could build such a house for less than the average American home of 2000 sq ft using conventional energy.

Why hasn't Al Gore moved into such a self sufficent house?

Have you done so?

Until you have done so what gives you the right to demand that others limit their energy use and utilize the force of government to make them do so?

Keith

[Pooeypants]

I think we should expand our nuclear energy generation, fission may be dirty but the materials can be contained with relative ease. Within the next couple of decades we may even see controlled fusion take over.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Pooeypants I think we should expand our nuclear energy generation, fission may be dirty but the materials can be contained with relative ease. Within the next couple of decades we may even see controlled fusion take over.

OK. Given a degree in physics, I'll definitely go along with that.

Let's see you get it by those that are dedicated to killing humans.

Keith

[Mr.Vicchio]

Pooey, you disprove to me that a single eruption like Pinatubo or Mount St. Helens puts out less C02 then we do. Go ahead.

Ya know I'm right. You also know that C02 doesn't just get dumped into the atmosphere and stay there, there is this whole "Atmospheric Cycle" of absorption and emission.

But hey, you're the one convinced that 100 PARTS PER MILLION extra c02 is going to roast the earth...

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Pooey, you disprove to me that a single eruption like Pinatubo or Mount St. Helens puts out less C02 then we do. Go ahead.

I don't need to disprove what hasn't been proven.

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Ya know I'm right. You also know that C02 doesn't just get dumped into the atmosphere and stay there, there is this whole "Atmospheric Cycle" of absorption and emission.

You mean the carbon cycle? Yeah, it's got a buffering capacity but if we pump up more gas than it can sink, the concentration rises... perhaps you'll actually read my links which blow your poorly constructed arguments out of the water.

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio But hey, you're the one convinced that 100 PARTS PER MILLION extra c02 is going to roast the earth...

I never said it'll roast the Earth. Please do not put words into my mouth.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger OK. Given a degree in physics, I'll definitely go along with that. Let's see you get it by those that are dedicated to killing humans. Keith

I say we go out there and bury those hippies along with the nuclear waste.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Pooeypants I say we go out there and bury those hippies along with the nuclear waste.

Ok. I'll go along with that.

Interestingly, nuclear power might actually give us enough power to offset the waste of creating biofuels. We could actually use the energy created to create portable fuels like ethanol and biodiesel without wasting fossil fuels, as we do now.

Nuclear power might even make hydrogen fuels worthwhile. Currently there is no ready source of energy available to dissociate hydrogen from oxygen in water (or, hydrogen from carbon in methane) other than fossil fuels. Given enough nuclear energy, even hydrogen fuel cells might be reasonable.

Given the current situation, such is not the case..

Keith

[Pooeypants]

It seems to me that the people who oppose nuclear power are often most likely to not know even High school knowledge of nuclear physics.
I think all hippies should get mandatory science lessons to brush up on the matter.