Climate Change is Natural: 100 Reasons Why

Daily Express ^ | 12/15/2009 | Dan Parkinson

[MrB]

TOTAL human contribution to the greenhouse effect is 0.28%
The CO2 portion of human contribution to the GE is 0.117%

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

[Mr. Silverback]

Thanks. I'm not just another pretty face, you know.

[JPJones]

Yes, CO2 is a trace gas, 385 or so parts per million, as compared to about 210,000 parts per million of oxygen.

Here's how I like to argue it:

Anthropogenic Co2 is a trace amount (2%) of total Co2, which is a trace (2%) amount of total Greenhouse gases which are in turn a trace amount of our atmosphere(2%).

So Anthropogenic C02 is not a trace. It's a trace of a trace of a trace, in any science that's called... insignificant.

[nobdysfool]

It would appear that Mr. Logan has suddenly found someplace else to be....

[UCANSEE2]

There is lots of room for debate about how, if at all, this will affect the earth's climate, but the fact itself is not in question.

In science class if you heat a gas, it expands.

You can cause a gas to create a change in temperature, but you must do so by changing the pressure.

Now, if GW scientists can change the 'pressure' of the atmosphere, I'm willing to send them money.

[UCANSEE2]

The biggest greenhouse gas is water vapor, not carbon dioxide.

If CO2 was so important in the the science of weather, I wonder why there is no C02 Satellite picture ever used or discussed by any weather station?

[the invisib1e hand]

Climate Change is Natural: 100 Reasons Why

102. Because Al Gore says it isn't.

[Roberts]

beautiful

[BunnySlippers]

Bmp

[SunkenCiv]

NItey-night.

· join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe ·

[Las Vegas Dave]

Of possible interest to the ping lists..

CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL: 100 REASONS WHY
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138

[Quix]

thanks much.

[boxerblues]

LV Dave

thanks!

Heard on the readio as I was driving in that the Ohio Senate passed its version of Cap & Trade...something about asking the electric companies to reduce its usage or be be fined 10K a day.

Have you heard anything on this?

[nobdysfool]

Here's a suggestion for the Ohio Senate: Stop meeting to pass crap legislation like that, and there will be a savings in electricity usage immediately.

When they start holding their sessions by candlelight, in an unheated, and/or non-air conditioned building, then they can begin to talk about people reducing their energy consumption. How much electricity is wasted by these windbags?

[Sherman Logan]

There is no scientific doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is the primary reason the surface of Venus is at a temperature of 900F.

Of course, the atmosphere of Venus is 970,000 ppm CO2, not 380 ppm. And it’s 90x more dense, to boot.

But it is still well known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If we added enough CO2 to the air, there is little doubt it would have an effect on the temperature. The question arises when we assume we know precisely how much it would take to cause this effect and how great the effect would be.

In particular, the latest AGW craze is the “tipping point,” a theory whereby at some unknown concentration of CO2, by implication only slightly above present levels, the earth goes into runaway warming, with all feedbacks reinforcing the mechanism.

In actual fact, of course, there are generally both positive and negative feedbacks to any process. Which will predominate at any point and how they will offset or reinforce each other is difficult to predict in advance, even for a simple process. That we claim to do so with accuracy for something as complex as the Earth’s climate is ludicrous.

The biggest problem with AGW models is seldom talked about, because it’s so fundamental. For a great many of the factors that go into the model, there is no solid data. So the scientists make assumptions and feed those in instead. An assumption can also be accurately described as a guess.

The model then crunches the data (and the guesses) and spits out a prediction. The precision of the number crunching performed by the model tends to obscure that a great deal of what was fed into it were assumptions (guesses).

A single guess fed into the model invalidates the accuracy of the results. In this case we probably have hundreds of guesses feeding into the result. The assumption (guess) being that the inaccuracies in the assumptions will offset each other, producing an accurate result.

But is there really any reason to believe this? How do we know the assumptions don’t reinforce each other’s inaccuracies?

[Loud Mime]

We have been warming from the time of the last ice age — a point that algore never brings up.

[nobdysfool]

There is no scientific doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is the primary reason the surface of Venus is at a temperature of 900F.

"A" greenhouse gas. And not even the most plentiful one. As for Venus, I am reasonably certain that there are other factors at work in the extreme temperatures and pressures on a planet which is nearly the same size as Earth. Key to that would be the fact that it is quite a bit closer to the ultimate source of planetary warming: the SUN! Even if atmospheric CO2 were the same on Venus as on Earth, Venus would be MUCH warmer. Venus is 67.2 million miles on average from the Sun, while the Earth is 93 million miles on average from the Sun. It doesn't take a genius to know that closer you are to a heat source, the hotter it will be. Using Venus as an example of "runaway greenhouse effect" is actually rather sloppy science.

But it is still well known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If we added enough CO2 to the air, there is little doubt it would have an effect on the temperature. The question arises when we assume we know precisely how much it would take to cause this effect and how great the effect would be.

"If WE add enough CO2 to the air"...You really have drunk the kool-aid, haven't you? As if WE were the only factor...like most Liberals, "it's all about us".... And, a factor you seem to want to ignore, is that as CO2 increases in the atmosphere, plant life flourishes, using the CO2 in photosynthesis, and adds more oxygen to the air, thereby at least partially ameliorating the effect. You have yet to show any real proof that any increase in CO2 levels is anthropogenic, and only anthropogenic. CO2 levels have varied in the atmosphere since long before mankind was even here.

As for the rest of your post, it reads more as obfuscation and trying to sound knowledgeable, while not actually saying anything of substance. It's not worth responding to.

[Sherman Logan]

And, a factor you seem to want to ignore, is that as CO2 increases in the atmosphere, plant life flourishes, using the CO2 in photosynthesis, and adds more oxygen to the air, thereby at least partially ameliorating the effect.

I find your responses odd. You seem to be anxious to classify me as a warmist, when I most definitely am not.

You also have no understanding of the magnitude of the concentrations involved, as you demonstrate in the above quote.

CO2 is around 380 ppm. Any added by man when fossil fuels are burned is produced by carbon in the fuel combining with O2 already in the air which is being used for combustion oxygen.

So when fossil fuels are burned a miniscule proportion of the O2 (free oxygen) in the air is converted to CO2. When plants remove this CO2 and use the carbon in photosynthesis, they do not "add oxygen to the air." They break the chemical bond between the carbon and the oxygen, releasing the O2 back as free oxygen.

In any case, with CO2 at 380 ppm and O2 at about 210,000 ppm, CO2 levels have little effect on oxygen levels.

[Just mythoughts]

Thank you for the ping.

[nobdysfool]

I find your responses odd. You seem to be anxious to classify me as a warmist, when I most definitely am not.

So far, you sound more like one than not. And you haven't really addressed that which I have said in response, other than to try to ever-so-subtly imply that I am a rube, an ignorant hick who knows nothing. CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas of consequence, nor is it the most plentiful. But it is being used as a political weapon out of all proportion, and your comments basically defending the so-called "science" of the warmists is, or seems, somewhat disingenuous when compared to your denials of being a warmist. Perhaps you should address the seeming contradictions in your presentations, rather than try to subtly wound a messenger who is calling you out on those contradictions.

You also have no understanding of the magnitude of the concentrations involved, as you demonstrate in the above quote.

I wasn't attempting to give a scientific dissertation, I was simply pointing out what warmists don't seem to want to hear, that things don't happen in a vacuum, and things and processes are interconnected, and interdependent. Perhaps I didn't adequately make that clear.

CO2 is around 380 ppm. Any added by man when fossil fuels are burned is produced by carbon in the fuel combining with O2 already in the air which is being used for combustion oxygen. So when fossil fuels are burned a miniscule proportion of the O2 (free oxygen) in the air is converted to CO2. When plants remove this CO2 and use the carbon in photosynthesis, they do not "add oxygen to the air." They break the chemical bond between the carbon and the oxygen, releasing the O2 back as free oxygen. In any case, with CO2 at 380 ppm and O2 at about 210,000 ppm, CO2 levels have little effect on oxygen levels.

All well and good. But the fact remains, that increases in CO2 do bring about more photosynthesis (which is what I was talking about, not burning fossil fuels) which does remove CO2 from the air. So really nothing has been proven here other than we both have an understanding of how oxygen is bound and released in natural processes involving the combustion of fossil fuels, and the photsynthesis of CO2 to liberate O2 back into the environment from which it was taken.