Al Gore--environmental saboteur?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The way by which you are measuring is linear (temperature stations). Even if you went and weighed yourself on 100 different scales, all giving you slight variations of measurement, as long as you kept record of your weight from each on of them consistently, that would be linear, would it not? Now suppose that other people using those same scales might throw the baseline off, you would still see a constant, linear change of weight over time. In other words, it matter less your actual weight than the actual change in weight which will be accurate within a margin.

To help you with the analogy you have chosen, all you are measuring is my weight. Now, you can infer something about my cholesterol levels, my risk for diabetes, or even perhaps how well my thyroid is working, by measuring my weight alone, but not enough to come to a valid conclusion without making further tests.

By measuring CO₂ levels over a period of time, at various altitudes and geographical locations, you can come to certain conclusions about CO₂ levels over the period they were measured, and how they change with time. If you make temperature measurements for the same locations, you might erroneously come to a conclusion that there is a direct correlation between CO₂ levels levels and temperature, absent any other measurements. However, there is no more science to that method, than there is to observing the positions of lights in the sky and their movements, and using those to predict future events.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The point that you really really work hard to ignore, in order to save your ideological beliefs,

And what exactly are my ideological beliefs?

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

To help you with the analogy you have chosen, all you are measuring is my weight. Now, you can infer something about my cholesterol levels, my risk for diabetes, or even perhaps how well my thyroid is working, by measuring my weight alone, but not enough to come to a valid conclusion without making further tests.

By measuring CO₂ levels over a period of time, at various altitudes and geographical locations, you can come to certain conclusions about CO₂ levels over the period they were measured, and how they change with time. If you make temperature measurements for the same locations, you might erroneously come to a conclusion that there is a direct correlation between CO₂ levels levels and temperature, absent any other measurements. However, there is no more science to that method, than there is to observing the positions of lights in the sky and their movements, and using those to predict future events.

I'm a bit confused because I thought we both agree that CO2 is in fact a heat trapping gas? How much it affects temperature can certainly be tested in a lab, on a much smaller scale. Regardless of other numerous variables that affect temperature, the level of impact CO2 has on the temperature would remain unchanged, correct? For example, if there was another heat trapping gas present in the air at the time the temperature was recorded, we can still accurately measure how much CO2 gas is effecting temperature, by measure the level of CO2.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Galt's gallstones

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I'm a bit confused because I thought we both agree that CO2 is in fact a heat trapping gas? How much it affects temperature can certainly be tested in a lab, on a much smaller scale. Regardless of other numerous variables that affect temperature, the level of impact CO2 has on the temperature would remain unchanged, correct? For example, if there was another heat trapping gas present in the air at the time the temperature was recorded, we can still accurately measure how much CO2 gas is effecting temperature, by measure the level of CO2.

If CO₂ was the only heat trapping gas, or you isolate it's effect, then you could come to that conclusion. But there are other variables in the system that change with temperature, and interact with the atmosphere. How are you going to hold those variables constant while you measure the effects of CO₂?

Edited February 23, 2010 by Lone Ranger

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Let me put this up for reference:

Edited February 24, 2010 by Lone Ranger

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

One more:

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

If CO₂ was the only heat trapping gas, or you isolate it's effect, then you could come to that conclusion. But there are other variables in the system that change with temperature, and interact with the atmosphere. How are you going to hold those variables constant while you measure the effects of CO₂?

But climatologist are in fact able to measure the various greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, as accurately as they can measure the levels of CO2. We can measure the level of impact on temperature from CO2, can we not? If the measurable were say ten percent of the temperature in Fahrenheit, per 100ppm, then you can determine fairly accurately the difference in temperature caused by CO2 levels. The level of impact on temperature is a constant.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

But climatologist are in fact able to measure the various greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, as accurately as they can measure the levels of CO2. We can measure the level of impact on temperature from CO2, can we not? If the measurable were say ten percent of the temperature in Fahrenheit, per 100ppm, then you can determine fairly accurately the difference in temperature caused by CO2 levels. The level of impact on temperature is a constant.

Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, and on average, is 100 times the concentration of carbon dioxide. And as the temperature increases, so does the amount of water vapor in the air. Unlike water, however, there is not a ready source of carbon dioxide to be vaporized. As a matter of fact, as temperature increases, so does photosynthesis, and the level of carbon dioxide actually decreases. We only have to look at the Carboniferous Period, when most of the atmosphere's carbon was sequestered through photosynthesis to form most of the coal lying under North America and other parts of the globe. Interestingly enough, the only period in earth's history where the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere were as low as they are in the current period was the Carboniferous period.

This is not to say we don't have problems, and concerns about continued human survivability on this planet, but grasping on to the concept that if we only could reduce carbon dioxide emissions, we will prevent the coming cataclysm is naive. But it is simple, and gives people hope, so #######! Who am I to shatter your beliefs?

Edited February 24, 2010 by Lone Ranger

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

Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, and on average, is 100 times the concentration of carbon dioxide. And as the temperature increases, so does the amount of water vapor in the air. Unlike water, however, there is not a ready source of carbon dioxide to be vaporized. As a matter of fact, as temperature increases, so does photosynthesis, and the level of carbon dioxide actually decreases. We only have to look at the Carboniferous Period, when most of the atmosphere's carbon was sequestered through photosynthesis to form most of the coal lying under North America and other parts of the globe. Interestingly enough, the only period in earth's history where the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere were as low as they are in the current period was the Carboniferous period.

This is not to say we don't have problems, and concerns about continued human survivability on this planet, but grasping on to the concept that if we only could reduce carbon dioxide emissions, we will prevent the coming cataclysm is naive. But it is simple, and gives people hope, so #######! Who am I to shatter your beliefs?

An increase in atmospheric CO2 causes an increase of water vapor and while there is much more water vapor in the atmosphere, it does not retain surface radiation on a molecular level as efficiently as CO2 does. And while we can't directly control water vapor in the atmosphere, we can reduce the level of CO2 emissions being released into the atmosphere.

As for beliefs - I think I've demonstrated a satisfactory understanding of the basic principles of Global Warming. From the day I was first taught about it in high school science, it was about science and not about a belief. I have no delusions that we'll be able to stop Global Warming, but I do believe we can drastically reduce CO2 emissions and thereby reduce atmospheric CO2 which in turn will slow down the rate of change in the earth's temperature to a rate that will give life on this planet a fighting chance to adapt to changes.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Galt's gallstones

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

An increase in atmospheric CO2 causes an increase of water vapor and while there is much more water vapor in the atmosphere, it does not retain surface radiation on a molecular level as efficiently as CO2 does. And while we can't directly control water vapor in the atmosphere, we can reduce the level of CO2 emissions being released into the atmosphere.

As for beliefs - I think I've demonstrated a satisfactory understanding of the basic principles of Global Warming. From the day I was first taught about it in high school science, it was about science and not about a belief. I have no delusions that we'll be able to stop Global Warming, but I do believe we can drastically reduce CO2 emissions and thereby reduce atmospheric CO2 which in turn will slow down the rate of change in the earth's temperature to a rate that will give life on this planet a fighting chance to adapt to changes.

Good enough for tonight. Let me post this here, and you can take it from there:

CARBON DIOXIDE VS. WATER VAPOR AS GREENHOUSE GASES

By quantity, there is much more water vapor than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Water vapor varies from a trace in extremely cold and dry air to about 4% in extremely warm and humid air. The average amount of water vapor in the atmosphere averaged for all locations is between 2 and 3%. Carbon dioxide levels are near 0.04%. That means there is more than 60 times as much water vapor in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide in average conditions. Both water vapor and Carbon dioxide are greenhouse gases. They both trap outgoing longwave radiation between the earth and the atmosphere. This has an effect of keeping temperatures warmer than they otherwise would be. Carbon dioxide is a more efficient greenhouse gas than water vapor when both are in equal quantities. However, they are not in equal quantities. There is much more water vapor than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In day to day weather forecasting, the greenhouse effect from water vapor is important while carbon dioxide is not. The atmospheric greenhouse effect from clouds and water vapor causes cloudy nights to be warmer than clear nights, all else being equal.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Ewok is going to kill the sight. Catch you in the morning.

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

CARBON DIOXIDE VS. WATER VAPOR AS GREENHOUSE GASES

By quantity, there is much more water vapor than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Water vapor varies from a trace in extremely cold and dry air to about 4% in extremely warm and humid air. The average amount of water vapor in the atmosphere averaged for all locations is between 2 and 3%. Carbon dioxide levels are near 0.04%. That means there is more than 60 times as much water vapor in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide in average conditions. Both water vapor and Carbon dioxide are greenhouse gases. They both trap outgoing longwave radiation between the earth and the atmosphere. This has an effect of keeping temperatures warmer than they otherwise would be. Carbon dioxide is a more efficient greenhouse gas than water vapor when both are in equal quantities. However, they are not in equal quantities. There is much more water vapor than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In day to day weather forecasting, the greenhouse effect from water vapor is important while carbon dioxide is not. The atmospheric greenhouse effect from clouds and water vapor causes cloudy nights to be warmer than clear nights, all else being equal.

Water vapor is a feedback rather than a forcing because it has short atmospheric lifespan of about 10 days, compared to CO2 which can stay in the atmosphere for decades to centuries.

Here's a good explanation of what is meant by feedback:

Water vapour act as a powerful greenhouse gas absorbing long-wave radiation. If the atmospheric water vapour concentration increases as a result of a global warming, then it is expected that it will enhance the greenhouse effect further. It is well known that the rate of evaporation is affected by the temperature and that higher temperatures increase the (saturated) vapour pressure (the Clausius-Clapeyron equation). This process is known as the water vapour feedback. One important difference between water vapour and other greenhouse gases such as CO₂ is that the moisture spends only a short time in the atmosphere before being precipitated out, whereas the life time of CO₂ in the atmosphere may be longer than 100 years.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Kind of strange that the science of Global warming has proven to be faked but everyone nonetheless believes in it so much. Co2 in the atmosphere is mostly put there by natural causes. The famous ice melt in Antarctica is actually wrong as the ice has increased not decreased.

The so called scientists that are measuring the Co2 are employed by the agencies that gets its funding from the very Feds that have a huge stake to ensure that the public falls for this scam to ensure their new direction and policies can be enforced. I happen to know that two people taking measurements will almost always come up with differing readings.

Plants need Co2 to live and thrive. The net amount in the atmosphere is the same. 80 ppm is .008 percent. They had to really stretch to get a reading to scare people. The percentages stay the same so they switch to PPM to make it seem that something is happening.

If scientists want to be taken seriously than don't accept money from the ones that are paying for the favorable conclusion and any unfavorable data is expunged or falsified.

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

...Co2 in the atmosphere is mostly put there by natural causes.

Yes and we wouldn't be alive today without the natural occurrence of heat trapping gases (greenhouse effect) in our atmosphere. However, if you understand the basic principles behind the Greenhouse Effect, you know that as natural CO2 goes into atmosphere there are natural filters (plants, oceans) that keep the saturation level relatively stable. Throw that balance off by adding 30 billion tons of CO2 emissions however and the radiation heat from the sun will cause the earth's temperature to rise. The earth's atmosphere is comparable to wrapping a paper around a basketball...very thin. This relationship between temperature and CO2 gases can be demonstrated in a lab - it is proven.

[Peikko 1,575]

The Feds fund climate science programs and measurements world wide? Good ol' USA

Edited February 24, 2010 by Madame Cleo