Climate Change Thread

**Avro** · 05-05-2011, 11:32 AM

**Locutus** · 05-05-2011, 12:24 PM

Old hoax is old.

**Avro** · 05-05-2011, 12:26 PM

Yes, denialism is a hoax.....more.

**Avro** · 05-05-2011, 12:42 PM

Just wondering Locutus are you one of those drones that never has an original thought.....?

....oh wait, you are a drone.

Oh boy, another right wing drone.

**IdRatherBeSkiing** · 05-05-2011, 06:26 PM

I am not convinced that the alledged global warming is a result of man made forces and not natural ones. The whole basis for that argument is the global warming theory put forward by the likes of Al Gore and others like him who himself have billions off of it. It is unproven and has taken the focus off real problems like polution and focused it on a possibly non-critical non-polutant carbon dioxide.

There have been many cycles over the milenium of cold and hot. There is nothing different about this one.

That being said, if we can reduce our polution and our carbon dioxide output, I don't see that as a bad thing. But its not worth killing our economy to do it. And don't get me started on the Kyoto farce. Any treaty which exempts the biggest polluters (India, Chinna, Russia) is completely bogus.

**Stoney Toni** · 05-05-2011, 06:57 PM

Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiing

I am not convinced that the alledged global warming is a result of man made forces and not natural ones. The whole basis for that argument is the global warming theory put forward by the likes of Al Gore and others like him who himself have billions off of it.

Actually the basis for that argument is the optical properties of the carbon dioxide molecule. At wavelengths like that of the heat radiated by the planet, atmosphere and ocean, the bonds between the carbon atom and the two oxygen atoms will vibrate and rotate. This is an increase in thermodynamic energy, and the molecule is then called excited. This just means that the energy is higher than the molecule would be at rest. So the molecule will give off energy as heat to go back to it's rest state.

Follow from that, that every year we put more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and the atmosphere becomes more opaque to that radiation. They have measured this at the top of the atmosphere, they have measured it from the ground. It's a robust finding that more energy is entering the planet than is leaving. So the planet warms.

The satellites can also analyze the spectrum of outgoing radiation to see where there is more or less absorption. Carbon dioxide and water vapour account for the largest portion. Water vapour itself cannot be a forcing factor, as the amount of water vapour a parcel of air can hold is dependent on the temperature of the air. If you add more water vapour, it will condense and fall out.

This isn't new, and Gore didn't discover this. Joseph Fourier had discovered this property in the 1820's, that the "air" was absorbing infrared radiation. By 1859, John Tyndall had performed the experiments in the lab which proved that there were gases present in our atmosphere which indeed do trap radiation. And finally, by 1896, Svante Arrhenius had done line by line calculations to give us our first estimate if climate sensitivity.

This is old, well established science, by some of the most eminent scientists who have ever practiced. Today, we are far beyond the understanding of these early academic giants.

As an example, the upper atmosphere is cooling, while the lower atmosphere is heating up, The only explanation that fits, is that the energy is not reaching the upper atmosphere and escaping back to space. The only climate factor which can explain this, as well as the many many other phenomenon we are observing now, is an enhanced greenhouse effect.

**Avro** · 05-05-2011, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiing

I am not convinced that the alledged global warming is a result of man made forces and not natural ones. The whole basis for that argument is the global warming theory put forward by the likes of Al Gore and others like him who himself have billions off of it. It is unproven and has taken the focus off real problems like polution and focused it on a possibly non-critical non-polutant carbon dioxide.

There have been many cycles over the milenium of cold and hot. There is nothing different about this one.

That being said, if we can reduce our polution and our carbon dioxide output, I don't see that as a bad thing. But its not worth killing our economy to do it. And don't get me started on the Kyoto farce. Any treaty which exempts the biggest polluters (India, Chinna, Russia) is completely bogus.

Show me one peer reviewed paper written by Al Gore.

Then I will show you the same amount written by climate deniers.

**IdRatherBeSkiing** · 05-05-2011, 10:21 PM

Originally Posted by Stoney Toni

Actually the basis for that argument is the optical properties of the carbon dioxide molecule. At wavelengths like that of the heat radiated by the planet, atmosphere and ocean, the bonds between the carbon atom and the two oxygen atoms will vibrate and rotate. This is an increase in thermodynamic energy, and the molecule is then called excited. This just means that the energy is higher than the molecule would be at rest. So the molecule will give off energy as heat to go back to it's rest state.

Follow from that, that every year we put more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and the atmosphere becomes more opaque to that radiation. They have measured this at the top of the atmosphere, they have measured it from the ground. It's a robust finding that more energy is entering the planet than is leaving. So the planet warms.

The satellites can also analyze the spectrum of outgoing radiation to see where there is more or less absorption. Carbon dioxide and water vapour account for the largest portion. Water vapour itself cannot be a forcing factor, as the amount of water vapour a parcel of air can hold is dependent on the temperature of the air. If you add more water vapour, it will condense and fall out.

This isn't new, and Gore didn't discover this. Joseph Fourier had discovered this property in the 1820's, that the "air" was absorbing infrared radiation. By 1859, John Tyndall had performed the experiments in the lab which proved that there were gases present in our atmosphere which indeed do trap radiation. And finally, by 1896, Svante Arrhenius had done line by line calculations to give us our first estimate if climate sensitivity.

This is old, well established science, by some of the most eminent scientists who have ever practiced. Today, we are far beyond the understanding of these early academic giants.

As an example, the upper atmosphere is cooling, while the lower atmosphere is heating up, The only explanation that fits, is that the energy is not reaching the upper atmosphere and escaping back to space. The only climate factor which can explain this, as well as the many many other phenomenon we are observing now, is an enhanced greenhouse effect.

I am aware of the basic principles of greenhouse effect. And yes, Al Gore just made it popular enough of a theme to make his money. But there has been a lot of unproven suggestions on exactly what is being attributed to CO2 and perhaps shouldn't be. I know the basic science on the properties of CO2 are pretty much proven (Venus is a good example). But the exact effects on climate and the amount required to make such a change are still unproven in my mind. And there seem to be differing opinions on this. If it was that much of a slam dunk, I would expect no discenting opinions.

Like I said, I don't think its a bad thing to reduce CO2. I just don't view it as priority #1 even on the environmental list.

**Avro** · 05-05-2011, 11:24 PM

Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiing

I am aware of the basic principles of greenhouse effect. And yes, Al Gore just made it popular enough of a theme to make his money. But there has been a lot of unproven suggestions on exactly what is being attributed to CO2 and perhaps shouldn't be. I know the basic science on the properties of CO2 are pretty much proven (Venus is a good example). But the exact effects on climate and the amount required to make such a change are still unproven in my mind. And there seem to be differing opinions on this. If it was that much of a slam dunk, I would expect no discenting opinions.

Like I said, I don't think its a bad thing to reduce CO2. I just don't view it as priority #1 even on the environmental list.

You can find discenting views on about anything, check out the flat earth society....seriously.

The amount it takes to change the climate has been proven time and time again.