No Evidence That Global Warming is manmade

Originally posted by TheAvenger
It's getting bit late for an old man. I will post a few tidbits then more tomorrow.

Schwinger

I've just had time to read through this article, as it seems to be the only scientific article you have posted.

Can you tell me what you find so compelling about the argument contained within?

[edit on 3-4-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by TheAvenger
The fact is, I have asked elementary questions, like how CO2 causes global warming more vs. water vapor and have yet to get a credible answer from anyone.
[edit on 4/3/2007 by TheAvenger]

OK, then how's this: Water vapor condenses into clouds, which have a COOLING effect. So how in the world could it be contributing to global warming more than CO2??

Here's another point: You said earlier I believe that deforestation and the oceans are more important than worrying about global warming.
I don't understand where you're coming from. Everything I've read link deforestation and troubled oceans to global warming as causes for GW.
Can you explain that please?

Originally posted by forestlady

OK, then how's this: Water vapor condenses into clouds, which have a COOLING effect. So how in the world could it be contributing to global warming more than CO2??

Water vapor is the most important and most abundant "greenhouse gase, also known as trace gas, it retains twice the amount of heat than CO2 does.

March 15, 2004 - (date of web publication)

SATELLITE FINDS WARMING "RELATIVE" TO HUMIDITY

A NASA-funded study found some climate models might be overestimating the amount of water vapor entering the atmosphere as the Earth warms. Since water vapor is the most important heat-trapping greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, some climate forecasts may be overestimating future temperature increases.

www.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by forestlady
Here's another point: You said earlier I believe that deforestation and the oceans are more important than worrying about global warming.
I don't understand where you're coming from. Everything I've read link deforestation and troubled oceans to global warming as causes for GW.
Can you explain that please?

Although trees are important, the oceans are one of the major factors which contribute to Climate Change.

As i have posted from other articles, it has been found that the oceans are warming due to Holocene sea level rise, or the warming the Earth has been experiencing since we came out of the last Ice Age for 11,500 years. Nothing to do with mankind.

[edit on 3-4-2007 by Muaddib]

Forestlady:

First of all, global warming is caused by greenhouse gases absorbing infrared radiation (heat) and holding it, creating a "greenhouse effect" instead of letting it escape into space. Water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse gas abundance in the atmosphere, and is a much better infrared absorber than CO2. CO2 is thus only 5% of the whole bloody thing to begin with, thereby making CO2 a very unlikely cause of global warming. Some would have you believe that the water vapor merely amplifies the effect of the CO2, but I disagree.

By the way, when CO2 is cooled, it solidifys and it is then called dry ice. CO2 has an unusual property known as sublimation, where a solid is converted directly to a gas without an apparent liquid intermediate phase.

I did not make any claims concerning deforestation.


[edit on 4/3/2007 by TheAvenger]

Originally posted by TheAvenger
Water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse gas abundance in the atmosphere, and is a much better infrared absorber than CO2. CO2 is thus only 5% of the whole bloody thing to begin with, thereby making CO2 a very unlikely cause of global warming.

I note with interest that you failed to comment on this: Water vapour: feedback or forcing?

Maudibb

How about that source for your graph???

I realize this may constitute splitting hairs to some people, but I think it's an important distinction. For the moment, ignore the phrase Global Warming and ignore the CO2 debate, and instead consider the following:

Do you agree or disagree with the assessment that we are experiencing global climate change and that it is being amplified by the actions of mankind?

Frankly the term "Global Warming" only ticks me off nowadays in the same way the term "The Big Bang" does, because so many people automatically assume they know what it means because of the name, and then assume they can debunk it based off their misconceptions of that name.

So please enlighten me as to how you have found peer reviewed papers printed in the last year that adequately refutes mankind's involvement in global climate change. I'm going to hazard that you haven't, and that instead you've found articles in magazines, newspapers, or a web site. I could be wrong, and I leave myself open to this possibility, but so far more than 90% of the worldwide scientific community has the hard, peer-reviewed data to prove that "Yes, humans have significantly contributed to global climate change."

Originally posted by thelibra
Frankly the term "Global Warming" only ticks me off

Ditto.

Originally posted by thelibra
So please enlighten me as to how you have found peer reviewed papers printed in the last year that adequately refutes mankind's involvement in global climate change.

I keep waiting...

Originally posted by thelibra
"Yes, humans have significantly contributed to global climate change."

Even Bush, today, said:

Bush says he takes climate change "very seriously"

"I've taken this issue very seriously. I have said that it is a serious problem. I recognize that man is contributing greenhouse gases."

He should know. He's had his administration redacting that information from the government science for most of his administration.

For the die-hard naysayers, I ask... Why would President Bush admit this, if he wasn't fairly sure it was true?

I guess he converted religion and Al Gore must be his god now too?



[edit on 3-4-2007 by loam]

thelibra:

I realize this may constitute splitting hairs to some people, but I think it's an important distinction. For the moment, ignore the phrase Global Warming and ignore the CO2 debate, and instead consider the following:

Do you agree or disagree with the assessment that we are experiencing global climate change and that it is being amplified by the actions of mankind?

:standing O':

With all this debate what is the consensus wrt what can be done? Even if man contributes significantly to climate-change (seems counter-intuitive that we do not) and, even if CO2 emissions are the the number one problem (I have no clue tbh)... what can reasonably be done to repair the damage done? Logistics/reality wise. The fossil fuel infrastructure is enormous and not going away any time soon, it's getting worse/bigger, no?


I wonder sometimes what this debate would've looked like had Gore not been out front on this... and I like him/voted for him. But if there's a conspiracy here it's - as always - political. Who I don't know, but distraction seems likely for the why. The focus of this debate seems trivial...


thelibra:

the same way the term "The Big Bang" does, because so many people automatically assume they know what it means because of the name

Wait until you tell 'em it was small, quiet, dark and that there's no such thing as "before" time.

Originally posted by loam
Even Bush, today, said:

Bush says he takes climate change "very seriously"

"I've taken this issue very seriously. I have said that it is a serious problem. I recognize that man is contributing greenhouse gases."

He should know. He's had his administration redacting that information from the government science for most of his administration.

Oh you'd LOVE this article which explains why Eric Schaeffer left Bush's EPA, then, especially in light of today's quote...

Oh yeah, our "president" has just been the #1 advocate for Environmental Responsibility and Stewardship.

Originally posted by TheAvenger
First of all, global warming is caused by greenhouse gases absorbing infrared radiation (heat) and holding it, creating a "greenhouse effect" instead of letting it escape into space. Water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse gas abundance in the atmosphere, and is a much better infrared absorber than CO2. CO2 is thus only 5% of the whole bloody thing to begin with, thereby making CO2 a very unlikely cause of global warming.

You do know that when all water is removed from climate models that 34% of the longwave radiation is still absorbed?

Schwinger


I've just had time to read through this article, as it seems to be the only scientific article you have posted.

Can you tell me what you find so compelling about the argument contained within?

[edit on 3-4-2007 by melatonin]

You must be a very poor judge of science.

[edit on 4/3/2007 by TheAvenger]