Global Warming... Is carbon the real reason??

reply to post by bronco73

EDITED: I must apologize. I had read some time ago that water vapor comprises 90 percent of the GHG's, but according to wikipedia it is 70%. I thought I better post this just in case somebody decides to check my numbers.

No need to apologize. The main point is as we've both stated, that water vapor is by far the primary component, and CO2 is indeed quite insignificant.

Hi, welcome to ATS,

One major problem with anthropogenic-driven climate change is that it presents its case to the public as being purely linear, mechanistic in the eighteenth century sense as if the atmosphere of the earth was a closed vessel.

Their view is completely in the classical/Newtonian (not to knock Sir Isaac) mould, in that they regard the relationship between matter and energy as being continuous.

The actual relationship, as first proposed by Max Planck, and confirmed by over a hundred and thirty years of scientific experiment and observation is that emission and absorption of energy can occur only in discrete amounts: quanta.

Measurement of quanta within the carbon cycle (of which atmospheric CO2 is a part) - even the most significant and relevant inputs/components of the carbon cycle such as Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR)(400-700nm] is virtually non-existant!

Because of its simplicity and sound bite usefulness in the media, the erroneous Newtonian continuous/classical linear model has gained traction (not to mention funding) among politicians, economists, people who think passion=scientific correctness, armies of well meaning school kids who are provided with a pre-packaged misanthropic cause to "fight" for, and a growing bureacracy of science seat warmers who see no contradiction at all in promulgating a theory from the early 1700's as if saying it often enough makes it any the less disproven.





[edit on 9-12-2008 by undermind]

its no coincidence that no one uses the term 'global warming' anymore...instead the term 'climate change' seems to have universally...and spontaneously...taken its place...that alone was enough for me to become skeptical..

the facts that the club of rome called for a global problem to 'unite' the people of the world in the 90s also screams conspiracy.

one more thing....dont listen to what politicians say...watch what they actually do.

merkel is constantly telling us in germany how much we need to fight climate change (although...how anyone can fight 'change' in the climate is beyond me as whatever the climate does it 'changes')...and then she goes on to vote against the forcing of car manufacturers to limit their cars CO2 emissions...

other leaders in other countries also claim WE have to fight climate change and then allow dozens of new airports to open every year or build new coal fired power stations...

it would seem to me that these people know that global warming is rot..but they want to hang on to the idea for the tax reasons they will soon implement.

also....no one mentions that the south pole ice caps have grown hugely recently...and that theres plenty of glaciers all over the world that are growing...we only hear however of the melting ice.

I'd just like to say that the scientific basis for climate change was well-established by the 1950s:

www.americanscientist.org...

reply to post by rul987


rul987 - since you have a minor in Physics I would highly highly recommend you just stick to the science when getting to the bottom of the global warming debate. The public furor over AGW is absolutely LITTERED with complete myths, red herrings, propaganda, and straight up disinfo deliberately put out there to confuse regular people about the real science. And unfortunately conspiracy sites like ATS have just become total echo chambers for this sort of manufactured ignorance.


So you need to add another point to your list if you're going to avoid suffering the same fate:


4. There is a whole industry built around denying global warming. Fossil fuel companies, special interest groups and free-market fundamentalists have completely hijacked the public forum because AGW seriously threatens their cash cow. So they've filled the discussion with lies and propaganda, like The Great Global Warming Swindle, that unfortunately 99% of so-called conspiracy theorists around here accept without any scrutiny just because these views appear on the surface to go against the mainstream.

If you want to understand more about why there is this conspiracy to deny AGW - then I suggest reading this thread.

And if you want to read up on some proper scientific debunkings of all the myths they generate - like "every planet is warming up", "it's just a natural cycle", "CO2 is a harmless trace gas", etc - then go here:
Skeptic Arguments and What the Science Says

I would also recommend checking out Peter Sinclair's Youtube channel, "Climate Denial Crock of the Week" for some great insight on the myths and motives of the denial industry. Here's one of my favorite videos of his that really hammers home how full of sh-- these people are:




And if you want to learn more about the AGW denial movement in general then I really recommend watching this investigative report:

Google Video Link

...
Meanwhile - as I said before, stick with the actual science and you'll be fine. Anthropogenic global warming is not a theory that is based on the fact that temperatures are going up. AGW is a theory that is based on the physics that predicted temps would go up over a hundred years ago. Read up on the history behind the science and see for yourself:
The Discovery of Global Warming


And despite the public debate being so obstructed and complicated today, the physics are simple and have been well understood for a long time now:

1. We know the Greenhouse Effect is real.
2. We know CO2 is a very important GHG.
3. We know we are increasing its concentration.

For some academic resources on all this I recommend looking here. With your background you should be able to calculate and verify the physics yourself. And from an electrical engineering perspective I would also suggest reading this explanation on how CO2 functions as a GHG (i.e. by forming a dynamic temporary dipole).

A lot of people feel AGW is a scam because they have issues trusting the scientists. But with your technical background you should have no trouble learning to trust the science itself. So once you have that under your belt you will see how utterly ridiculous it is to hear people spew the same ignorant rhetoric about how a well established 150 year old science is obviously a big hoax because [insert some combination of Al Gore, taxes and emails, etc]

Originally posted by undermind
Hi, welcome to ATS,

One major problem with anthropogenic-driven climate change is that it presents its case to the public as being purely linear, mechanistic in the eighteenth century sense as if the atmosphere of the earth was a closed vessel.

Their view is completely in the classical/Newtonian (not to knock Sir Isaac) mould, in that they regard the relationship between matter and energy as being continuous.

The actual relationship, as first proposed by Max Planck, and confirmed by over a hundred and thirty years of scientific experiment and observation is that emission and absorption of energy can occur only in discrete amounts: quanta.

Measurement of quanta within the carbon cycle (of which atmospheric CO2 is a part) - even the most significant and relevant inputs/components of the carbon cycle such as Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR)(400-700nm] is virtually non-existant!

Because of its simplicity and sound bite usefulness in the media, the erroneous Newtonian continuous/classical linear model has gained traction (not to mention funding) among politicians, economists, people who think passion=scientific correctness, armies of well meaning school kids who are provided with a pre-packaged misanthropic cause to "fight" for, and a growing bureacracy of science seat warmers who see no contradiction at all in promulgating a theory from the early 1700's as if saying it often enough makes it any the less disproven.
[edit on 9-12-2008 by undermind]

Ummm...do you have any idea what you're talking about?

First off the fact that energy is quantized is a total non sequitur. Whether it is continuous or discrete has nothing to do with how much energy CO2 is known to absorb. Furthermore your assertion that scientists use some sort of classical model is completely wrong. Do you know what this is:



That is a Planck Distribution for how much energy CO2 traps at discrete wavelengths. Those two graphs show the change in forcing when you double CO2 from 300ppm to 600ppm.

Second of all Photosynthetically Active Radiation operates from 400-700 nm, aka visible light. You are using the fact that CO2 does not absorb/emit in the visible spectrum to try and justify why it can't trap heat (infrared radiation)?

Here is the absorption spectrum for various GHG's in the visible (0.4-0.7 microns) and infrared (0.7+):

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d379a6c7a0e5.gif[/atsimg]

Either you are seriously confused or you're just throwing out fancy sounding concepts to sound smart? Either way it's wrong...


* EDIT because I just noticed this thread is 2 and a half years old, so I don't know if your second post was a way of making amends for the first...