To Algore: "My Prime Cause is Bigger than Yours!"
Posted on 03/05/2007 9:49:28 AM PST by finnman69
Balderdash. - Venus is less than half of the distance to the sun as mars; I don't suppose that could cause higher temps, huh?
Increased atmospheric density helps to keep the planet cool. Claiming the contrary is not just stupid, it is mendacious.
It is the major factor in climate stabilization when operating with precipitation systems. Were it not present, earth would be cold.
To Algore: "My Prime Cause is Bigger than Yours!"
So, you are saying the sun has nothing to do with global temperatures?
The "greenhouse gas" with the far bigger effect is actually dihydrogen monoxide, but since they can't use that one to attack energy use in the USA, it has got no airtime at all.
Global warming isn't a myth - the myth is that humans caused it. Algore and his ilk confuse cause and effect, but hey, it gives him a chance to look smart and get a lot of attention.
I see nowhere where burzum makes that claim.
When they saw how easy it was to fool most everyone they got horny, then Al Gore got in on the party, now it's all this.
The greenhouse effect is not a myth. Greenhouse gases obviously change the climate as has been proven during several major climatic shifts in the Earth's history.
One should always inquire about which comes first, the chicken or the egg:
"(1) correlation does not prove causation, (2) cause must precede effect, and (3) when attempting to evaluate claims of causal relationships between different parameters, it is important to have as much data as possible in order to weed out spurious correlations."
"Consider, for example, the study of Fischer et al. (1999), who examined trends of atmospheric CO2 and air temperature derived from Antarctic ice core data that extended back in time a quarter of a million years. Over this extended period, the three most dramatic warming events experienced on earth were those associated with the terminations of the last three ice ages; and for each of these climatic transitions, earth's air temperature rose well in advance of any increase in atmospheric CO2. In fact, the air's CO2 content did not begin to rise until 400 to 1,000 years after the planet began to warm. Such findings have been corroborated by Mudelsee (2001), who examined the leads/lags of atmospheric CO2 concentration and air temperature over an even longer time period, finding that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged behind variations in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years over the past 420,000 years.
Other studies have also documented a fundamental violation of the cause-must-precede-effect principle in the climate alarmist hypothesis of CO2-induced global warming. From a high-resolution temperature and atmospheric CO2 record spanning the period 60 to 20 thousand years ago, Indermuhle et al. (2000) examined the CO2/temperature relationship at four distinct periods when temperatures rose by approximately 2°C and CO2 by about 20 ppm. One type of statistical test performed on the data suggested that the shifts in the air's CO2 content during these intervals lagged those in air temperature by approximately 900 years; while a second statistical test yielded a mean lag time of 1200 years."
[ see also: Yokoyama et al. (2000), Clark and Mix (2000), Petit et al. (1999), Staufer et al. (1998)]
- "Other studies periodically demonstrate a complete uncoupling of CO2 and temperature "
[see: Cheddadi et al., (1998), Raymo et al., 1998, Pagani et al. (1999), Pearson and Palmer (1999), Pearson and Palmer, (2000) ]
- "Considered in their entirety, these several results present a truly chaotic picture with respect to any possible effect that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration may have on global temperature. Clearly, atmospheric CO2 is not the all-important driver of global climate change the climate alarmists make it out to be."
High levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide necessary for the
termination of global glaciation
Raymond T. Pierrehumbert
Department of the Geophysical Sciences, The University of Chicago,
Nature Vol 429 10 June 2004
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/NatureSnowballMelt.pdfThe possibility that the Earth suffered episodes of global glaciation as recently as the Neoproterozoic period, between about 900 and 543 million years ago, has been widely discussed1–3. Termination of such ‘hard snowball Earth’ climate states has been proposed to proceed from accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere4. Many salient aspects of the snowball scenario depend critically on the threshold of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations needed to trigger deglaciation2,5. Here I present simulations with a general circulation model, using elevated carbon dioxide levels to estimate this deglaciation threshold. The model simulates several phenomena that are expected to be significant in a ‘snowball Earth’ scenario, but which have not been considered in previous studies with less sophisticated models, such as a reduction of vertical temperature gradients in winter, a reduction in summer tropopause height, the effect of snow cover and a reduction in cloud greenhouse effects. In my simulations, the system remains far short of deglaciation even at atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations of 550 times the present levels (0.2 bar of CO2). I find that at much higher carbon dioxide levels, deglaciation is unlikely unless unknown feedback cycles that are not captured in the model come into effect.
All that you have to do is to compare Venus and Mars to realize that the greenhouse effect is real. Claiming the contrary is really stupid.
And be careful to at least figure out what "greenhouse" effect is responsible, there is more than one factor involved in planetary atmospheres for what erroneously has become a catchall phrase in every phenomena that might have something to do with weather and climate anywhere in the solar system.
Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1994 - Volume 2, Greenhouse Gas Emissions
"Twenty-six million miles from Earth, in an orbit much closer to the Sun, Venus spins through space with a furnace-like surface temperature of more than 800o Fahrenheit (F) (426.5o Celsius [C]), which is much hotter than its proximity to the Sun would explain. Scientists used to believe that Venus fell victim to the greenhouse effect because 96 percent of its atmosphere is carbon dioxide, with nitrogen accounting for almost all the remainder [26]. It is now generally agreed within the planetary atmospheres community that carbon dioxide alone would lead to an average temperature of less than 25oC. The primary reason that Venus is warmer than this is the presence of sulfuric acid cloud cover over the entire planet, extending from about 50 kilometers to 70 kilometers from the surface."
Can you read?
Obviously the sun has to have an effect for the greenhouse effect. I wasn't debating global warming, only that some people want to extend their fear of global warming to all things scientific, including the greenhouse effect which is quite real.
I don't see stated anywhere in the article where the greenhouse effect is a myth. The major thrust of the IPCC and those who believe the lies of Gore is that CO2 is the primary driving factor causing climate change. All other factors are completely ignore or minimized by those who are rabid about CO2. Many "true" scientists are wary of the strong influence of politics in this debate; and with good reason. The so called solutions by these negative control freaks will wreck the US and world economy for absolutely no benefit. Roy Spencer a renowned NASA scientists made a salient point about how the current climate models almost wholly ignore the role of precipitation in moderating the Earth's heat load. Anyone with a rational mind has to question the raving totalitarian approach of the likes of Gore and the leftists over this issue. Hopefully, the tide will turn against these lunatics who want to destroy Capitalism (what's left of it ) in America and permanently condemn many in the third world to a future with no hope of improvement.
|
There IS evidence of global warming. It happened in 950 AD and it's happening again now.
There is no evidence of ANTHROPOGENIC global warming.
Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.
This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.
Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.
"Greenhouse gases obviously change the climate as has been proven during several major climatic shifts in the Earth's history. All that you have to do is to compare Venus and Mars to realize that the greenhouse effect is real. Claiming the contrary is really stupid.
I guess you do not understand what he's saying. He says the temperature difference on these two planets are caused by their atmospheres, not their distance to the sun.
There is no conclusive evidence to say "greenhouse gases" were the cause of the climate shifts in the earths history. Other factors such as solar activity can and does play a very large role.
A large commet strike can put up a cloud of dust covering the entire earth and cause what is called a nuclear winter, no "greenhouse gases" involved at all.
Reseach shows that global temperatures increased and were FOLLOWED by higher CO2 levels, so it's obvious that CO2 levels were not the cause of the temperature increase.
One single volcanic eruption could produce more CO2 than all the CO2 ever produced by mankind.
It's clear that co2 is not a greenhouse gas, and in fact it benefits plant life on earth. Co2 levels are more or less regulated by plant life on earth, when there is an abundance, plants grow faster, reducing co2. When co2 levels drop, plant growth is less vigorous.
lucky for algore, I just went into the business of selling "carbon offset" offsets..as the name implies, it offsets the offsets so he can once again use as much power as he wants with no guilt..these only cost $200 per offset, call now, operators are standing by..BUT WAIT, if he orders now, I'll also include Ginsu Knives and a free years supply of Oxy-clean..:)
Lets cut the difference and meet in the middle--meaning the Moon. The side of the Moon that is not currently being irradiated (night) has a temperature of -153 C. The side that is being irradiated (day) has a mean temperature of 107 C. These temperature are more or less governed by Stefan's Law. If greenhouse gases had no effect you would expect the Earth to be fairly similar to the Moon (though you do have to account for our increased rotational speed). But you don't find anywhere including the poles during the peak of summer or winter that reach those temperatures. And they aren't extremes, they are averages--temperatures can go as cold as -233 C on the Moon.
All the greenhouse effect does is act as a buffer to find a reasonable temperature and offsetting the powerful T^4 effect of Stefan's law. Mars is so cold because there is so little atmosphere coupled with a smaller solar flux. Venus is so hot because the atmosphere is trapping so much heat along with a larger solar flux. Unsurprisingly, Mercury (with no greenhouse effect) is just like the Moon. Extremely hot during the day and extremely cold during the night.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
