Al Gore--environmental saboteur?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Lets step back for a moment. We both agree that the earth's atmospheric temperature is regulated by the Greenhouse Effect. Water vapor in the atmosphere does in fact trap heat. How much water vapor goes into the atmosphere though is affected by many conditions, but in general, raising the earth's temperature will increase the level of water vapor. Water vapor's effect on the overall temperature of the earth is fleeting though because it doesn't stay in the atmosphere for long (10 days), so if you look at it's effect on temperature, it would be undulating as it dissipates into rainfall. CO2 on the other hand, accumulates into the atmosphere and can remain there for over 100 years. Given that the regulation of the earth's temperature is a balancing act, both from the cycle of moisture in the atmosphere and the greenhouses gases on one side and the carbon sinks (oceans, plant life) on the other, any heat trapping mechanism that can accumulate into the atmosphere over a long enough period of time is going to throw off that balance.

Comparatively, if we had a scale and on one side, you have 100lbs of brick, and on the other side you have a 100lbs of various objects with different weights balancing it out, and some of those objects are paperclips, if you keep adding paperclips, the scale will tilt. It matters not how minute the weight of the paperclip is, enough of them will throw the scale off balance. So you might have 90lbs of bricks and only 10lbs of paperclips, but you can't dismiss the paperclips as not crucial in maintaining a balanced scale.

Nope. Not at all. Green house gases are just small contributers to a complex system, that includes the conversion of hydrogen to helium 93 million miles away, and an radioactive heat source at the core of the planet.

And, the contribution of carbon dioxide is minimal, compared to water.

If the climatologists freely admit they don't understand all the complexities of the problem, I don't think that persisting with this obsession about carbon dioxide levels is worthwhile.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Lone Ranger

[Peikko 1,575]

Sure. And not just fossil fuels, but fuels in general, including the so-called environmentally friendly bio-fuels. The burning of any fuel results in the acidification of the soils, toxic metal contamination of the water supply, and particulate matter clogging our lungs. By comparison, carbon dioxide, a normal product of combustion, is relatively benign.

Normal concentrations of co2 are 'relatively benign'. Normal substances can be quite deadly in the wrong places, including water. You can drown from drinking too much of it

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Normal concentrations of co2 are 'relatively benign'. Normal substances can be quite deadly in the wrong places, including water. You can drown from drinking too much of it

And what would be a normal concentration of CO₂?

[luckytxn 2,265]

Sure. And not just fossil fuels, but fuels in general, including the so-called environmentally friendly bio-fuels. The burning of any fuel results in the acidification of the soils, toxic metal contamination of the water supply, and particulate matter clogging our lungs. By comparison, carbon dioxide, a normal product of combustion, is relatively benign.

Exactly. This is what I was referring to before. Pollutants are a major health hazard. I have been glad myself that we have made great strides to reduce the particulate contaminations that used to be normal. Also the dumping of toxics being stopped for he most part has been awesome. Co2 is no danger to us right now that every evidence I have seen so far. What I do see is our government taking a stand and forcing a bunk science on everyone to further their agenda for control and money and power.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Okay, this thread has been dragging on for far too long. Let's settle it once and for all: Al Gore is solely responsible for any ill effect any human activity has ever had or will ever have on our climate. I think we can all agree on that. And if it wasn't so environmentally offensive, we should just burn him.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Okay, this thread has been dragging on for far too long. Let's settle it once and for all: Al Gore is solely responsible for any ill effect any human activity has ever had or will ever have on our climate. I think we can all agree on that. And if it wasn't so environmentally offensive, we should just burn him.

Al? Al? Got anything to add?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Al? Al? Got anything to add?

What else is there to add? Al Gore sabotaged the world's environment. He needs to be brought up on charges.

[Pooky 3,844]

What else is there to add? Al Gore sabotaged the world's environment. He needs to be brought up on charges.

Are you positive?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Nope. Not at all. Green house gases are just small contributers to a complex system, that includes the conversion of hydrogen to helium 93 million miles away, and an radioactive heat source at the core of the planet.

And, the contribution of carbon dioxide is minimal, compared to water.

If the climatologists freely admit they don't understand all the complexities of the problem, I don't think that persisting with this obsession about carbon dioxide levels is worthwhile.

I'm confused. Are you disputing now the Greenhouse Effect? I've been reluctant to copy and paste much because I wanted us to step through the logic and reason behind Global Warming theory to get to the heart of what you do accept and what you don't scientifically.

Here's an explanation of the amount of influence greenhouse gases (water vapor being one of them) have on atmospheric temperature:

"33º C" is the difference between the mean surface air temperature of the planet and the blackbody radiating temperature (i.e. the temperature a blackbody would need to radiate at to be in equilibrium with the incoming solar radiation given an albedo of about 0.3). While that is one way to assess the strength of the basic greenhouse effect, another one is measure the amount of long wave radiation from the surface that is absorbed in the atmosphere (by greenhouse gases (incl. water vapour), clouds, aerosols, etc.). That is currently about 150 W/m² and would be zero with no greenhouse effect at all. "95% of this warming is caused by water vapour" The '90-95%' is for both water vapour and clouds, and b) just wrong and c) irrelevant anyway.

Dealing with b) first, if you remove all water vapour and clouds you still absorb about 34% of the long wave radiation, and conversely, if you only have water vapour and clouds you absorb 85%. Thus the effect of water vapour and clouds is between 66 and 85% – the range being due to the spectral overlaps with the other absorbers. These calculations were done with the GISS GCM radiation code, which matches line-by-line codes to about 10% – but the numbers are very similar to Ramanathan and Coakley (1978), and so probably aren't too far off what you would get with any decent radiation code.

Look, we can in fact measure the effect on atmospheric temperature from greenhouse gases. We can even isolate them by each individual gas (water vapor included). However, there are overlaps (as noted above), saturation effects (like CO2 staying in the atmosphere for centuries), and feedbacks (like an increase of water vapor as a result of rising temperatures).

...water vapour concentration is a feedback not a forcing, it can't be assumed to remain constant as the planet cools. Water vapour does in fact change (roughly keeping relative humidity, as opposed to specific humidity, constant) and this has been shown in the real world as a function of volcanic cooling (Soden et al, 2002) and for longer term trends (Soden et al, 2005, discussed here), and is well reproduced in climate models.

Edited February 25, 2010 by Galt's gallstones

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I'm confused. Are you disputing now the Greenhouse Effect? I've been reluctant to copy and paste much because I wanted us to step through the logic and reason behind Global Warming theory to get to the heart of what you do accept and what you don't scientifically.

Here's an explanation of the amount of influence greenhouse gases (water vapor being one of them) have on atmospheric temperature:

[/i]

Look, we can in fact measure the effect on atmospheric temperature from greenhouse gases. We can even isolate them by each individual gas (water vapor included). However, there are overlaps (as noted above), saturation effects (like CO2 staying in the atmosphere for centuries), and feedbacks (like an increase of water vapor as a result of rising temperatures).

Rather than post disembodied chunks of text you don't comprehend, take the time to do a little more research, and get back to me when you can explain your theories with a little more clarity.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Rather than post disembodied chunks of text you don't comprehend, take the time to do a little more research, and get back to me when you can explain your theories with a little more clarity.

Bill, you stated above that you don't think greenhouse gases are a significant contributor to trapping heat, correct? That in effect you are discounting the Greenhouse Effect theory which has been long accepted as sound science. So I showed in my post, the actual measurable effect (33 deg. cel.), greenhouse gases have on the overall temperature. Even when you remove clouds and water from the equation, greenhouse gases still are significant contributors to trapping heat.

You also stated that it is water vapors that have a more significant impact on trapping heat, which is comparatively accurate, however, I replied that water vapor is not on the same level as other greenhouse gases because, in my layman's term, it is more fleeting...and is dependent on warmer temperature to be present in the atmosphere, which is why it is called a feedback and not a forcing. Do you accept this?

You have also emphasized repeatedly that there are too many variables that effect climate, making it impossible to make accurate projections. That is not true. We now have computer models that can make calculations that might have seemed impossible to do years before. Whatever uncertainties in making climate projections exist, the established cause and effect relationship between CO2 levels and temperature are measurable, provable and significant.

I gave what I thought was a pretty decent analogy of a scale in balance, representing the earth's relatively stable climate. On one scale, you have the carbon sinks and respirators removing CO2 from the atmosphere and on the other scale, you have greenhouse gases and other variables trapping heat and warming the planet. That balance has been thrown off before leading to previous Ice Ages. Hypothetically, even if 95% of the variables the effect climate are beyond our control, the remaining 5% that we can control (CO2 emissions) is significant enough to tip the scales and thereby raising the earth's temperature. It is that plain and simple. CO2 stays in the atmosphere for centuries and thereby accumulates (saturation). Take the hypothetical amount of 5% and multiply it a 100 times and see what happens to the scales. If you slowly increase the atmospheric levels of CO2 to where the plant life could adjust, I suppose in theory they would, but over how much time? One of the other problems is that as the earth's temperature rises, the effectiveness of the oceans to act as carbon sinks diminishes. So as we keep added CO2 emissions in the air, the temperature rises, water vapor increases, warming the planet further as the oceans remove less and less CO2 from the atmosphere. It doesn't take a big imagination to see the potential catastrophic events that will happen if we don't greatly reduce CO2 emissions in an effort to slow this tilt in the scales.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Bill, you stated above that you don't think greenhouse gases are a significant contributor to trapping heat, correct? That in effect you are discounting the Greenhouse Effect theory which has been long accepted as sound science. So I showed in my post, the actual measurable effect (33 deg. cel.), greenhouse gases have on the overall temperature. Even when you remove clouds and water from the equation, greenhouse gases still are significant contributors to trapping heat.

You also stated that it is water vapors that have a more significant impact on trapping heat, which is comparatively accurate, however, I replied that water vapor is not on the same level as other greenhouse gases because, in my layman's term, it is more fleeting...and is dependent on warmer temperature to be present in the atmosphere, which is why it is called a feedback and not a forcing. Do you accept this?

You have also emphasized repeatedly that there are too many variables that effect climate, making it impossible to make accurate projections. That is not true. We now have computer models that can make calculations that might have seemed impossible to do years before. Whatever uncertainties in making climate projections exist, the established cause and effect relationship between CO2 levels and temperature are measurable, provable and significant.

I gave what I thought was a pretty decent analogy of a scale in balance, representing the earth's relatively stable climate. On one scale, you have the carbon sinks and respirators removing CO2 from the atmosphere and on the other scale, you have greenhouse gases and other variables trapping heat and warming the planet. That balance has been thrown off before leading to previous Ice Ages. Hypothetically, even if 95% of the variables the effect climate are beyond our control, the remaining 5% that we can control (CO2 emissions) is significant enough to tip the scales and thereby raising the earth's temperature. It is that plain and simple. CO2 stays in the atmosphere for centuries and thereby accumulates (saturation). Take the hypothetical amount of 5% and multiply it a 100 times and see what happens to the scales. If you slowly increase the atmospheric levels of CO2 to where the plant life could adjust, I suppose in theory they would, but over how much time? One of the other problems is that as the earth's temperature rises, the effectiveness of the oceans to act as carbon sinks diminishes. So as we keep added CO2 emissions in the air, the temperature rises, water vapor increases, warming the planet further as the oceans remove less and less CO2 from the atmosphere. It doesn't take a big imagination to see the potential catastrophic events that will happen if we don't greatly reduce CO2 emissions in an effort to slow this tilt in the scales.

You are spinning in circles worrying about a small piece of the problem. And, the concentration of CO₂ is not additive, but rather dependent on other mechanisms in play, that minimize its effect. You cannot just isolate one variable, and claim by adjusting the value of that variable, you could manipulate the outcome of the entire system. If indeed that was the case, then the problem would be solved. Such is not the case, as has been demonstrated over and over, throughout history, when such predictions fail to materialize.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You are spinning in circles worrying about a small piece of the problem. And, the concentration of CO₂ is not additive, but rather dependent on other mechanisms in play, that minimize its effect. You cannot just isolate one variable, and claim by adjusting the value of that variable, you could manipulate the outcome of the entire system. If indeed that was the case, then the problem would be solved. Such is not the case, as has been demonstrated over and over, throughout history, when such predictions fail to materialize.

I was directly addressing the issues you brought up.

The concentration of CO2 is not additive? How are you drawing that conclusion? Because of how much CO2 is absorbed by the planet? Again, all measurable with a reasonable degree of accuracy. You can't isolate one variable? If you can't then how can you be sure about water vapor's measurable affect on climate? I tell you what you can't do...cherry pick the science.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I was directly addressing the issues you brought up.

The concentration of CO2 is not additive? How are you drawing that conclusion? Because of how much CO2 is absorbed by the planet? Again, all measurable with a reasonable degree of accuracy. You can't isolate one variable? If you can't then how can you be sure about water vapor's measurable affect on climate? I tell you what you can't do...cherry pick the science.

Not additive in that the equation is not linear. and minimized by other mechanisms in play, of which water vapor is a major player.

The Mathematics of Global Warming

As an expert in the solutions of non-linear differential equations, I can attest to the fact that the more than two-dozen non-linear differential equations in weather models are too difficult for humans to have any idea how to solve accurately. No approximation over long time periods has any chance of accurately predicting global warming. Yet approximation is exactly what the global warming advocates are doing. Each of the more than thirty models being used around the world to predict the weather is just a different inaccurate approximation of the weather equations. (Of course, this is an issue only if the model of the weather is correct. It is probably not, because the climatologists probably do not understand all of the physical processes determining the weather.)

Therefore, one cannot logically conclude that any of the global warming predictions are correct. To base economic policy on the wishful thinking of these so-called scientists is just foolhardy from a mathematical point of view. The leaders of the mathematical community, ensconced in universities flush with global warming dollars, have not adequately explained to the public the above facts.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the...lobal_warm.html

[one...two...tree 2,762]

American Thinker, Bill? Can you not find a climate science publication that supports your argument?