Replies

http://www.ciesin.org/docs/003-074/003-074.html

The greenhouse effect, despite all the controversy that surrounds the term, is actually one of the most well-established theories in atmospheric science. For example, with its dense CO2 atmosphere, Venus has temperatures near 700 K at its surface. Mars, with its very thin CO2 atmosphere, has temperatures of only 220 K. The primary explanation of the current Venus “runaway greenhouse” and the frigid Martian surface has long been quite clear and straightforward: the greenhouse effect (3) . The greenhouse effect works because some gases and particles in an atmosphere preferentially allow sunlight to filter through to the surface of the planet relative to the amount of radiant infrared energy that the atmosphere allows to escape back up to space. The greater the concentration of “greenhouse” material in the atmosphere (Fig. 1) (4), the less infrared energy that can escape. Therefore, increasing the amount of greenhouse gases increases the planet’s surface temperature by increasing the amount of heat that is trapped in the lowest part of the atmosphere. What is controversial about the greenhouse effect is exactly how much Earth’s surface temperature will rise given a certain increase in a trace greenhouse gas such as CO2.”

There are legitimate and well founded arguments against the theory of global warming, and whether humans are responsible. There is not a legitimate argument over whether CO2 in excessive levels in the atmosphere can be very harmful. Co2 absorbs energy in the form of heat, and that is a fact that has been scientifically proven, and can easily be scientifically recreated.

The earth is what is referred to in science as a buffered system. If CO2 experiences a sudden rise in concentration it will cause an increase in the rate of reaction with other chemical processes which use it as a reactant. It will bind with organic materials to form plant and animal matter. It will bind with calcium, magnesium, and other metals to form carbonates (limestone, coral etc). The result is a return to the equilibrium level.

This buffered ecosystem is ABSENT on Mars and Venus so they are not analogous models. Why do you bring them up?

For example, with its dense CO2 atmosphere, Venus has temperatures near 700 K at its surface. Mars, with its very thin CO2 atmosphere, has temperatures of only 220 K. The primary explanation of the current Venus “runaway greenhouse” and the frigid Martian surface has long been quite clear and straightforward: the greenhouse effect

This is actually funny. Venus' atmosphere has 96.5% CO2, Mars' atmosphere has 95.32% CO2. The only difference is Venus' atmospheric pressure is 92 times that of earths and Mars' is 0.007 of earths atmosphere. The "greenhouse effect" would seem to be from atmospheric pressure and not from composition.

And then there is that whole thing about Venus being closer to to sun, but....

I have just learned that too much CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere — more than say 10 times the current level — might be injurious to human health. However, the current public controversy is about human-induced global warming, and there the skeptics seem to be rational, and the alarmists seem to be following a non-fact-driven agenda.

Speculation about what may or may not be responsible for the atmospheric conditions on Venus and Mars is not very persuasive evidence to me.

I’d recommend the several speeches on this subject by Dr. Michael Crichton M.D., on his website: http://michaelcrichton.com/speeches.html
In my opinion Dr. Crichton is a brilliant man with no ax to grind.

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, the Albert Sloan Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T. is well-qualified in this area. Everything he has written about global warming is worth reading. Here is one of his oldest articles to get you started:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html

The many fine references provided in post 21 are also worth reading.

Here’s an interesting new article I just happened upon:
http://brneurosci.org/co2.html
The author seems to be out of his field, but the reasoning seems sound.

I believe that there really now is a scientific consensus on this subject. The consensus is that there is some minor warming occurring due to CO2 emissions, but it is not enough to require remedial action at this time, and possibly never will be. Or as Dr. Crichton puts it, “There are many reasons to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, and I support such a reduction. But global warming may not be a good or a primary reason.”