Posted on 05/25/2006 9:02:16 AM PDT by cogitator
There's a small handful of prosletyzers. The people who know the science are tired of arguing with them because the alarmists are like jello. You push them decisively on one point and they'll go off on another thread and push some other point. Most of their points are copied from people with an agenda.
That IMO is slightly low, but not unreasonable.
The highest projected increase in CO2 (which IMO is unlikely) yeilds another 1 degree C.
You think atmospheric CO2 will top off at 470 ppm? Why?
In your bong, maybe.:-) 0.035% of the normal atmosphere is CO2.
He has it on good authority from the inventor of the Internet.
You left off the Darwinists.
I'm sure it was an innocent oversight.
I corrected your spelling for you. No, mainstream scientists are not anti-scientific. What an odd idea that would be!
Dude, I knew that bong would get me into trouble. I stand corrected.
According to:
http://www.uigi.com/air.html
it is .038%, essentially the same as your claim.
I guess that makes this a case of me being right even when I am wrong. Man's output of CO2 is even less of a potential influence than I said. I am incorrect, but accurate (beat that CBS!)
BTW, the temperature increase is not linear, but logarithmic: see http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/climate-sensitivity-and-editorial.html: You should realize that the carbon dioxide only absorbs the infrared radiation at certain frequencies, and it can only absorb the maximum of 100% of the radiation at these frequencies. By this comment, I want to point out that the "forcing" - the expected additive shift of the terrestrial equilibrium temperature - is not a linear function of the carbon dioxide concentration. Instead, the additional greenhouse effect becomes increasingly unimportant as the concentration increases: the expected temperature increase is something like
* 1.5 ( 1 - exp[-(concentration-280)/200 ppm] ) Celsius
By specifically leaving out this 'contextual info' that would prove them wrong, the 'Co2 is killing us' folks have really pulled a good one.
The people who know the science are tired of arguing with them...
Exactly! It has gotten to be beyond tiresome.
There used to be people who posted serious data and analyses but it was just mental floss to the "believers".
I may have heard something but but have no real info on this - it would be very compelling.
Agree completely. The global warming naysayers are wrong to deny that global warming caused by human action exists, but the enviromental activists are equally wrong to think that you can ignore the basic laws of economics the way their opponents ignore the laws of ecology, and that there's an easy quick fix that can reverse the effects of over 200 years of massive emissions of various pollutants.
The positions of the continents have much more to do with the average temperature of the Earth than CO2. 600 million years ago and to a smaller extent, 450 million years ago, all of the continents were locked together with a big portion of them over the South Pole.
Glaciers built up over the poles, spread out over more continental area (glaciers cannot spread out the same way over oceans which why the glacial sheets of Antarctica are more-or-less limited to the continental shelf.)
As more glaciers built up, more sunlight was reflected which made it colder which lead to more ice and so on and so on.
600 million years ago, this process lead to a near complete freezing of the entire planet, even the oceans, and the epoch has been termed as Snowball Earth by geologists.
When continental drift lead enough of the continents off of the South Pole, the climate rewarmed and what we got was the Pre-Cambrian explosion of complex life-forms 580 million years ago.
About 35 million years ago, Antarctica moved far enough South that glaciers took over again. Greenland moved far enough North that glaciers took over about 15 million years ago. 3 million years ago, the North American continent moved far enough North that it became suceptible to climate and glacial oscillations. This has also contributed to the glaciations that Asia and Europe experience.
The poles have always been frozen over whether covered in ocean or continents. Someone mentioned trees growing at the poles (laugh).
The point is, the position of the continents has much more to do with the average temperature of the Earth and climate norms than a measely 0.038 per cent of CO2.
Your link neglects to consider pressure broadening (CO2 in the lower atmosphere has a significant linewidth; as you go up in elevation, it narrows). So while the extinction at the top of each rovibrational line may be close to saturated, that on the flanks will continue to increase with concentration. An absorbtion line with finite linewidth will never give rise to an equation of the form you show, because there will always be regions in the flanks of the lines whose absorbtion continues to increase with concentration.
If Scientific American, a populist science mag, has to address the "inconvenient truth" of real scientists do NOT agree with global warming BS, then it is clear they are on the loosing end of the PR debate.
Remember none of the industrial contries met KYOTO BS protocols.
I don't know what that means.
Not according the most recent, most accurate analyses; plus cellulosic ethanol has a better energy in - energy out ratio.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.