Global Warming: The New Religion

[Matt308]

Originally Posted by Marcel

I also would like to hear his theory where the extra CO2 provided by burning organic fuels has gone to if it is not in the atmosphere. Maybe this should give me the info I need to dismiss the Greenhouse theory.

It was only last week that a notable scientist and professor (can't recall his name offhand) was on the syndicated Michael Medved show here in the states. He made a claim that the amount of CO2 that is naturally generated versuse the amount produced by man is phenomenally miniscule in comparison. His analogy was if you imagined the amount of naturally generated CO2 was the length of a football field, the man-made CO2 would be about the thickness of three playing cards.

I know stupid to use a length measurement analogy for a mass measurement. Don't shoot the messenger. You have to remember the average audience member has likely only had 10th grade math.

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by Matt308

It was only last week that a notable scientist and professor (can't recall his name offhand) was on the syndicated Michael Medved show here in the states. He made a claim that the amount of CO2 that is naturally generated versuse the amount produced by man is phenomenally miniscule in comparison. His analogy was if you imagined the amount of naturally generated CO2 was the length of a football field, the man-made CO2 would be about the thickness of three playing cards.

I know stupid to use a length measurement analogy for a mass measurement. Don't shoot the messenger. You have to remember the average audience member has likely only had 10th grade math.

you mean you raised the average somewhat.

Interesting, Matt. I would like to research this further. Not to contradict this, but I'm a biologist and although I'm not an expert, I know biospheres require a delicate balance in chemistry. I still can imagine that this balance is somehow tipped over even by a comparable small amount. It also could be a combination of de-forresting and increased CO2 output or even only the de-forresting (if that's an English word )

In any case, Javlin suggested that there wasn't even an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. That's really an interesting thing if he could confirm it as it would IMO taking the wind out of the Greenhouse theory.

[Matt308]

And Marcel, I recognize my post was poor. A no-named scientist, who is a professor at a school I can't name, making a scientific analogy whose units do not even correspond to argument. So thankyou for being kind in your response.

[renrich]

Marcel. incidently, did you know there is more forest land today in the US than there was when the first Europeans arrived? I understand the problem that Matt has because I hear or read stuff all the time and can't remember the names or exact information. However, it is easy to understand why more woodland today than 400 years ago in US.

[Oreo]

We must remember that, as a substance, there is nothing wrong with CO2. It is to plants what oxygen is to humans and animals.

When a human patient is ill, or in a place requiring breathing apparatus, oxygen is used rather than regular air. The ill patient breathes better with purer oxygen.

So also, plants become more healthy with additional carbon dioxide in the air. If we want to save the trees and flowers, we need to increase the CO2 level in the air.

I've noticed that the grass seems healthiest where I park the back rear corner of my car. . . . .

[Njaco]

Marcel, a few posts ago I linked a site that explained how the CO2 acts as a mirror for the sunrays and actually balances all the effects. Mother Nature at its best. And Matt isn't the only one that remembers a no-name theory with unknown, can't remember whoseitz name perfessors!!

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by Njaco

Marcel, a few posts ago I linked a site that explained how the CO2 acts as a mirror for the sunrays and actually balances all the effects. Mother Nature at its best. And Matt isn't the only one that remembers a no-name theory with unknown, can't remember whoseitz name perfessors!!

That's true, however I doubt it'll counter the isolation it provides. Could you direct me to the post as I don't seem to be able to find it? Javlin did post a nice article about clean air in relation to warmer temperatures. Could be interesting. I think I'll have to read more of the previous pages

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by renrich

Marcel. incidently, did you know there is more forest land today in the US than there was when the first Europeans arrived? I understand the problem that Matt has because I hear or read stuff all the time and can't remember the names or exact information. However, it is easy to understand why more woodland today than 400 years ago in US.

Yep, and here in Europe it's increasing as well. But because of the location and type of trees, the rainforest is much more important and this has been diminishing rapidly the last century.

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by Matt308

And Marcel, I recognize my post was poor. A no-named scientist, who is a professor at a school I can't name, making a scientific analogy whose units do not even correspond to argument. So thankyou for being kind in your response.

No problem, Matt, I can't expect you to remember everything and I also don't provide a source for everything. But it does contribute as it gives insights to what we have to look for when researching this.

The main problem IMO with this whole discussion is that it's mainly based on rumors. Someone heard from someone that... This counts for both the pro and the contra people. It's mainly based on what people want to believe themselves, and maybe that's what Njaco calls "voodoo science". The science behind all this ios probably too complex for the average person (including me) to understand, which makes it even more mysterious, and this makes scientist to give you their conclusions without supporting data, or, even worse, with only a part of it, like the example you gave. I think I'll go and try to get some more real data when I have time, to form my own conclusion.

[Njaco]

The science behind all this ios probably too complex for the average person (including me) to understand

That includes me, also. The point about the CO2 I was making started when I watched a program about it on PBS here and went through the whole dynamic of the mirror effect even to the point that scientists were able to prove the theory when 9/11 happened as no planes were flying and mean temps rose. I checked the net and found several other sites about it. Will try to find them. (I think I posted them? )

[renrich]

There was someone yesterday on TV who was quoted as saying that temperature records of the British Admiralty going back to the 1700s bring serious questions about GW. The source was from something called ? Sunderland Institute?

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by renrich

There was someone yesterday on TV who was quoted as saying that temperature records of the British Admiralty going back to the 1700s bring serious questions about GW. The source was from something called ? Sunderland Institute?

Good one, Renrich, here some text:
From Common Sense and Wonder More bad news for the global warming crowd

More bad news for the global warming crowd
Filed under: Science, Environment — Jerry @ 12:19 pm

Lord Nelson and Captain Cook’s shiplogs question climate change theories
The ships’ logs of great maritime figures such as Lord Nelson and Captain Cook have cast new light on climate change by suggesting that global warming may not be an entirely man-made phenomenon.

By Tom Peterkin
Last Updated: 11:56AM BST 04 Aug 2008

A paper by Dennis Wheeler, a geographer based at Sunderland University, recounts an increasing number of summer storms over Britain in the late 17th century Photo: AP
Scientists have uncovered a treasure trove of meteorological information contained in the detailed logs kept by those on board the vessels that established Britain’s great seafaring traditition including those on Nelsons’ Victory and Cook’s Endeavour.

Every Royal Naval ship kept a detailed record of climate including air pressure, wind strength, air and sea temperature and major meteorological disturbances.

A group of academics and Met Office scientists has unearthed the records dating from the 1600s and examined more than 6,000 logs, which have provided one of the world’s best sources for long-term weather data.

Their studies have raised questions about modern climate change theories. A paper by Dennis Wheeler, a geographer based at Sunderland University, recounts an increasing number of summer storms over Britain in the late 17th century.

Many scientists believe that storms are caused by global warming, but these were came during the so-called Little Ice Age that affected Europe from about 1600 to 1850.

The records also suggest that Europe saw a spell of rapid warming, similar to that experienced today, during the 1730s that must have been caused naturally.

“British archives contain more than 100,000 Royal Navy logbooks from around 1670 to 1850 alone,” Mr Wheeler said. “They are a stunning resource. Global warming is a reality, but our data shows climate science is complex. It is wrong to take particular events and link them to carbon dioxide emissions.

“These records will give us a much clearer picture of what is really happening.”

Unfortunately can't find the promised paper

[Marcel]

I thought this to be an interesting site as well, supporting the Green House theory, quite interesting to read the whole site. I learned it's from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography

Climate and CO2 in the Atmosphere:

A few highlights:

You may have decided, based on the limited evidence given in Section 1.0, that the climate is warming and that the increase in carbon dioxide is responsible. Or you may have decided that the climate is warming and we do not know why. Or you may think that just because the overall temperature increased by 2°F does not mean that there is a permanent warming of climate — seasonal variation is much greater than this, and it could get cooler again soon, in which case there would be no long-term warming.

For each choice, you could find scientists who would support your opinion. However, most scientists actually working on this subject would support the first conclusion. The reason is that the addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere must produce warming, a fact derived from our basic knowledge of physics. It is not some obscure hypothesis, but a physical principle that if you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, this will increase the "greenhouse effect" and generate global warming in the lower atmosphere. The real debate then is about the amount of uncertainty on the magnitude that will result from this human-made warming (that is, the size of the "error bars" on the data), not the fact of global warming itself. In other words, we know that our addition of CO2 will cause global temperatures to go up; the question is how bad this warming will be and what its consequences will be.

The Role of Scientists
As seen with the ozone hole and the Montreal Protocol, governments will act when the danger ahead is quite well defined and not too far in the future and when the remedy is obvious and not too expensive. Therefore, if a scientist's advice is to be useful to government it needs to define the danger that the future might bring, how soon it may be expected, and what types of action might avert the danger anticipated. Guessing the future climate, then, is an attempt to make science useful to human affairs. There are several circumstances that make such guessing very difficult, as follows:

* The future of emissions involves the behavior of people and the economic development of nations. Both are notoriously difficult to predict.
* The plain physical greenhouse warming from given rates of emissions is difficult to calculate, even when all other factors are kept constant.
* A lot of factors play a role that are by no means constant. Warming, and especially unequal warming, generates all sorts of changes which in turn slow the warming (like heat uptake by the ocean) or accelerate it (like darkening of the ground by melting snow). The ultimate outcome of such calculations have a large margin of error.
* Non-linear effects of global warming (threshold effects such as stopping the ocean's deep mixing, or runaway effects such as producing methane from melting permafrost or from a warming sea floor) introduce potentially important dynamics which are very poorly understood and cannot be predicted with much confidence at all.

[Oreo]

Originally Posted by Marcel

Yep, and here in Europe it's increasing as well. But because of the location and type of trees, the rainforest is much more important and this has been diminishing rapidly the last century.

60-70% of the earth's oxygen production from CO2 is done by the algae in the oceans. (no source).

[pbfoot]

I recently learnt that Methane has relative short shelf life as it breaks down within a few years so cows shouldn't fear nor the permafrost