Posted on 12/11/2007 6:46:22 AM PST by Between the Lines
“Global warming” hoax BUMP!
“because CO2 levels in the atmosphere are building, and are up 30% in the last decade. please explain this further to me.”
Because CO2 goes up and down over time. Even if up %30, CO2 is something like 2% of the constituency of the greenhouse gases.
We only have the ability to cause about a 10% change in the CO2.
10% x 2% = .2% net effect.
Now, if we could change the water vapor, we could control the weather. At least that would be the smart place to put money.
I am not a global warming alarmist. I was just trying to point out that saying CO2 isn’t harmful because plants need it is ridiculous.
There are many unknowns about the entire idea of climate change and the link to greenhouse gasses. However, the alarmists use actual scientific facts in their studies. The facts are just twisted and manipulated to make their case.
I just don’t understand why so many try to deny the scientific part, while ignoring the manipulation.
All living things are made up of Carbon, Oxygen, Hydrogen and nitrogen with other elements join in in smaller quantities. If you grow from 8 pounds to 200 pounds, you take up a lot of CO2 as do plants and especially trees.
It takes time for chemical reactions to move away from or towards equilibrium. It is far from instantaneous where carbon dioxide is concerned. Small sea creatures (like coral) take up carbon dioxide from the sea and the atmosphere and combine it with calcium to make limestone and coral reefs. It takes a long time, but it is
inexorable. This is why the AGW argument is so naive. It is not looking at the correct timing for the processes.
You really need to look at the way life works on the planet. It is called the carbon cycle.
That still does not answer how C02 at high levels is a bad thing. It is only an assumption and it is only supported by modeling that is theoretical. Not one theoretical scenario for out-of-control C02 levels, btw, demonstrates levels that could be deemed harmful according to observed data on its effects. Also, you appear to assume that the increase in atmospheric C02 is due to anthorpogenic generation - if that is your contention, then you must realize that the numbers don’t add up. That leaves us with it is a phenomenon that we can’t control and that is not harmful.
You've almost got it right. The alarmists take observational data and feed it to their computer "models". The model is supposed to use the raw input to calculate the expected changes in the world's climate. The problem is if you take any one of the models back to 1997 (Ie: feed it data up to 1997) and then ask for a projection to 2007, the projection does not match the actual observed data for that decade. Furthermore, the further ahead you project the greater the deviation from reality.
The models factor in some (but not all) of the parameters known to effect climate and in some calculations use "positive" feedback. When you model a dynamic system and use positive feedback in the calculations a very small tweak in an input parameter can cause a wild swing in the output. This does not mean that the earth's climate is dynamically unstable, only that the model is! To make a accurate model would require that we know all the parameters that effect climate (which we don't!) and the modes by which they interact (we don't know that either) They leave some out because we don't know how to describe the interaction of, lets say, Gamma rays on cloud cover. So that parameter is just ignored.
Furthermore, the real partisan GW supporters are expert in "figures don't lie but liars can sure figure". Take a change in CO2 of from 0.02% to 0.03%. Which would you find most alarming? Report the change as 0.01ppm (parts per million) or in increase of 133%! Sometimes it's not what you say but how you say it.
Regards,
GtG
I understand the carbon cycle perfectly well. You are way oversimplifying the matter. We are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere that was accumulated over millions of years, and has been contained for millions.
That goes way beyond the circle of life/carbon cycle process. That is why the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. Sure, over time things might reach an equilibrium. I never said that it wouldn’t.
I just don’t see how any of this has to do with the fact that too much CO2 in the atmosphere is harmful. There isn’t really any disagreement on that fact. The disagreement is about how much CO2 in the atmosphere will be harmful, what is the effect of too much, what could cause it, and whether it is something we need to do something about.
Great! Now all you Libs - STOP GLOBAL WHINING!
“Also, you appear to assume that the increase in atmospheric C02 is due to anthorpogenic generation - if that is your contention, then you must realize that the numbers don’t add up. That leaves us with it is a phenomenon that we can’t control and that is not harmful.”
I don’t know where you got that idea. I was only arguing that just because CO2 isn’t a pollutant, doesn’t mean that it cannot be harmful.
CO2 in the atmosphere (along with other greenhouse gasses) keeps Earth’s climate at a liveable range of temperatures. Changes in the concentration of CO2 will change our temperatures. The question is how much CO2 is necessary to do this, and how much it will change the temperatures. That is the debate, the GW alarmists believe that it is close to the point that it will cause major changes in climate. The evidence does not necessarily support that, although some does.
CO2 is safe at reasonable levels. This doesn’t mean it is safe at all levels.
You are aware, then, that the more C02 that is introduced into the atmosphere, the less effect that the increased concentrations have as a greenhouse gas? This has been tested and researched to the point that we know at levels above the current ones that the effect of the additional gas is almost negligible (notwithstanding IPCC alarmist conclusions).
Excellent post. I just completed a discussion with board members of our company that illustrates your point about language. It is amazing how you can get people to agree to a conclusion that matches what you have been promoting as long as it sounds like what their position was at the start of the meeting.
Humans are causing the earth’s rotation to slow down. Look at the data!
/sarc
See post 74.
I read your post #74 and hit the links you provided prior to my last post. I stand on my last post.
I was responding to post 91
~~Anthropogenic Global Warming ™ ping~~
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.