Al Gore--environmental saboteur?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

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:

That doesn't change the fact, that by my calculations, 100 times, and by the article I quotes, more than 60 times, the concentration of water vapor over the concentration of carbon dioxide exists in the atmosphere on average. That is a mean value, if you remember your math at all, and that is the number you use to make comparisons. Like I said before, there is not a ready supply of liquid carbon dioxide (not at atmospheric pressure, anyways) available to provide the vapor pressure sufficient to replenish the atmosphere on a continuing basis.

Water vapor (and as a liquid and solid as well) has another characteristic: It holds heat, absorbs heat, (high heat capacity) and has a high heat of vaporization (and heat of fusion), all of which make both the major player in both short term weather effects, and stabilizing medium to counter other players' effects over time.

No, making Carbon Dioxide the holy grail is not go to even slow down what the planet is going to do, or not do.

[luckytxn 2,265]

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.

Yes if you isolate just those to the exclusion of everything else. If you threw in just one more thing and place plants there then the Co2 would reduce and oxygen would increase. Then start throwing in other factors then the same results become meaningless. From every data I have seen it appears that the Co2 levels are actually staying pretty much the same but I am looking at it as percentages. I could really freak you out if I did PPB instead. The one fact remains is that the Global warming crowd have been proven to have falsified results and excluded anything not favorable to their side. Any other scientist that tries to refute them are labeled as quacks. This then becomes not science but discredited theories. There are actually more scientists that are against the Global warming theory then for it.

Believe it or not I actually like reducing any and all pollutants. The U.S. has for many decades now done a lot to help repair damages we have done to our enviroment. That is I think one of the main reasons that the North American sink has been a positive. The prevailing winds and atmosphere is actually less when it travels from west to east and Co2 is reduced when it leaves us. We can do more of course and should be vigilant but when we ship our jobs and livelihoods overseas to countries that do not abide by damaging actions that affect us then it hurts us a lot. China and India cares not one iota about us here and spend little on enviroment damage control. This means that we are expected to lower our emissions even more to counteract their damage and that puts us at a disadvantage economically I also don't think it is our governements

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

That doesn't change the fact, that by my calculations, 100 times, and by the article I quotes, more than 60 times, the concentration of water vapor over the concentration of carbon dioxide exists in the atmosphere on average. That is a mean value, if you remember your math at all, and that is the number you use to make comparisons. Like I said before, there is not a ready supply of liquid carbon dioxide (not at atmospheric pressure, anyways) available to provide the vapor pressure sufficient to replenish the atmosphere on a continuing basis.

Water vapor (and as a liquid and solid as well) has another characteristic: It holds heat, absorbs heat, (high heat capacity) and has a high heat of vaporization (and heat of fusion), all of which make both the major player in both short term weather effects, and stabilizing medium to counter other players' effects over time.

No, making Carbon Dioxide the holy grail is not go to even slow down what the planet is going to do, or not do.

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.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Galt's gallstones

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

Yes if you isolate just those to the exclusion of everything else. If you threw in just one more thing and place plants there then the Co2 would reduce and oxygen would increase. Then start throwing in other factors then the same results become meaningless. From every data I have seen it appears that the Co2 levels are actually staying pretty much the same but I am looking at it as percentages.

See my above post about the balancing act of regulating the earth's temperature through the Greenhouse Effect.

As for reading accurate levels of CO2 - Charles Keeling designed the manometer back in 1958 and was able to accurately measure atmospheric levels of CO2, as well as acidified samples of water. I'm not sure what sources you are relying on, but the current CO2 levels are at about 380ppm, have risen sharply over the last 50 years, and have never been above 300ppm over the last half million years, which includes four ice ages.

[luckytxn 2,265]

See my above post about the balancing act of regulating the earth's temperature through the Greenhouse Effect.

As for reading accurate levels of CO2 - Charles Keeling designed the manometer back in 1958 and was able to accurately measure atmospheric levels of CO2, as well as acidified samples of water. I'm not sure what sources you are relying on, but the current CO2 levels are at about 380ppm, have risen sharply over the last 50 years, and have never been above 300ppm over the last half million years, which includes four ice ages.

You are wrong. Everything I have read showed that when they are running tests on those core samples that are supposedly showing the Co2 levels from up to 500,000 years ago are just educated guesses. This means they could be wrong and that the levels could ave been higher.

Also manometers measure pressure and I hope no one is relying on them reading Co2 levels. There are very accurate tests for Co2. I had worked in too many laboratories and inspection services to know that just among two people that even collect samples that there are variances. That two people that run the tests can gave different readings and this is just two things. There are many other variables. Like a test and protocols that are used now may not have been used in the past so the results now could be be different then. The only way to know for sure is never to exlude contradictory results and never try to fit results to suit you. You must publish and show all data to arrive at any conclusion. If the data are being rigged than everything is useless. If I or my people had rigged the data in our laboratories we would have been sued and lost a lot of money not to mention our reputations would have been destroyed. The Global warming scientists have done this so they are now a bunk science. It will only be restored by careful considerations form all and that includes the anti warming scientists.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You are wrong. Everything I have read showed that when they are running tests on those core samples that are supposedly showing the Co2 levels from up to 500,000 years ago are just educated guesses. This means they could be wrong and that the levels could ave been higher.

Also manometers measure pressure and I hope no one is relying on them reading Co2 levels. There are very accurate tests for Co2. I had worked in too many laboratories and inspection services to know that just among two people that even collect samples that there are variances. That two people that run the tests can gave different readings and this is just two things. There are many other variables. Like a test and protocols that are used now may not have been used in the past so the results now could be be different then. The only way to know for sure is never to exlude contradictory results and never try to fit results to suit you. You must publish and show all data to arrive at any conclusion. If the data are being rigged than everything is useless. If I or my people had rigged the data in our laboratories we would have been sued and lost a lot of money not to mention our reputations would have been destroyed. The Global warming scientists have done this so they are now a bunk science. It will only be restored by careful considerations form all and that includes the anti warming scientists.

Of course, if you are using a manometer to measure atmospheric pressure, then you have to compensate for water vapor pressure, which is a function of temperature. However, none such requirement is necessary for carbon dioxide, which for all intents and purposes is negligible. Next fallacy please.

(760 torr = 1 atmosphere)

But we are concerned with concentrations, not pressures. So, how a manometer is going to determine the levels of carbon dioxide present, I would like to know.

[Peikko 1,575]

Try this site if you are really interested:

Link

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Try this site if you are really interested:

Link

Where's the hockey stick? Looks like a linear function to me.

[Peikko 1,575]

What's with the obsession with hockey sticks?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

What's with the obsession with hockey sticks?

Exactly!

Tu ne quaesieris, scire nefas, quem mihi, quem tibi

finem di dederint, Leuconoe, nec Babylonios

temptaris numeros. ut melius, quidquid erit, pati.

seu pluris hiemes seu tribuit Iuppiter ultimam,

quae nunc oppositis debilitat pumicibus mare

Tyrrhenum: sapias, vina liques et spatio brevi

spem longam reseces. dum loquimur, fugerit invida

aetas: carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't agree that ignorance is bliss.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I don't agree that ignorance is bliss.

Then, why do you participate in this delusion? It doesn't take much of a scientific background to debunk all this. Let's move on to the real environmental issues, like overfishing.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Lone Ranger

[Peikko 1,575]

Then, why do you participate in this delusion? It doesn't take much of a scientific background to debunk all this. Let's move on to the real environmental issues, like overfishing.

There are a lot of real environmental issues, overfishing is most certainly one of them - but so is the inexorable increase in ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, even though we can't know for certain what the result of this accumulation will be.

If it makes anyone feel better, the pollution put out by the burning of fossil fuels has some other highly detrimental effects that are entirely measurable as well, the idea of reducing the emissions is a win win regardless if yo can or can't understand the climate science behind GW.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

There are a lot of real environmental issues, overfishing is most certainly one of them - but so is the inexorable increase in ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, even though we can't know for certain what the result of this accumulation will be.

If it makes anyone feel better, the pollution put out by the burning of fossil fuels has some other highly detrimental effects that are entirely measurable as well, the idea of reducing the emissions is a win win regardless if yo can or can't understand the climate science behind GW.

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.

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

Then, why do you participate in this delusion? It doesn't take much of a scientific background to debunk all this. Let's move on to the real environmental issues, like overfishing.

Whoah there, kemosabe. At what point in our debate so far have you debunked anything? Go back to my last post directly to you, ignore all other chatter, and lets continue on. I can't reply right away but if you can reply to my post (23), I'll give you a well thought response later on.

Post 23

Edited February 24, 2010 by Galt's gallstones