Global Warming?

[SurlyPIG]

So, Ace, do you deny the existence of greenhouse gases? In other words, do you deny the CHEMICAL PROPERTIES of, say, carbon dioxide?

You mean such properties as its tendancy to transmit radiant energy? Of course not. Theories about IR absorbtion are unfounded when used in an atmospheric scale. The trouble with a 'scientist' blasting an aquarium of compressed CO2 with ultra-high intensity infrared light and then concluding "CO2 causes global warming) is that it does not in any way emulate atmospheric conditions and account for such factors as conduction rates of the mixture of air, cyclic convection currents on the molecular level, and it doesn't emulate in the LEAST way the HUGE range of grades of IR light reflected off Earth's diverse surface.

If CO2 does not affect global temperatures ( ::) ), then how do you explain the massive difference in temperature between Earth's and Venus' atmospheres? (among a hundred other things, but this is the most obvious)

lol, how about SOLAR PROXIMITY. Venus is closer to the sun, ever thought of that? Radiant energy decreases in intensity over distances. It's the reason why mercury is hotter than mars and pluto and the reason why Neptune is colder than Jupiter.

Honestly, Ace, your argument is about as solid as a creationist's. Hey, evolution is a theory too! ::)

Evolution actually has solid evidence to back it up. You canNOT say this about the theory of the greenhouse effect.

FACT: Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities raise global temperatures. We're not sure how much or how fast, but they are warming the Earth's atmosphere. To claim that human activity has no effect on global temperatures means denying the chemical properties of a great number of substances (as well as saying that everything we know about Venus is a flat out lie).

False fact. Hydrocarbons have been burning since for billions of years. Global temperatures are cyclic.

Above ALL, do you know what effects the Earth's temperature? The sun. Every year, every decade, every century scientists have linked global temperature activities directly and more importanly, PROPORTIONALLY, to sun activity. I wish I had archived it to show you but picture a graph with three lines on it; one showing trends in sun activity, one showing trends in apparent human-emitted 'greenhouse gases'. The sun activity and global temperature trends match evenly in all trends, instabilities and fluctuations. The 'greenhouse gases' are off doing their own thing, not matching either other line's trends whatsoever.

[Gobalopper]

Now, Gobalopper: Let's assume for a second that you are right. Tell me, how exactly is getting people to change a bad thing? How is reducing pollution a bad thing?

I didn't say anything about it being wrong, I said it is wrong to scare people into changing.

[Timenn]

Global Warming isn't the only problem on this planet. There are alot more, like dense population, garbage, and a broken ozon layer, pollution in the sea, toxic waste, etc.

And Edric is indeed right, the humans do have their part in in, although it isn't only their fault.

And the rising of the sea level with only 1 meter is already very destructive.

People aren't scared about the fact. They are being warned. And there can be made alot of changes which shouldn't be so hard.

Just look at the Dutch (who are generally more thrifty then Americans) where still the major part of the car rides are for a distance of less then 6 km!

[Edric O]

So, Ace, you are saying that gases like CO2 and water vapour have no effect on global temperatures whatsoever? The whole greenhouse effect is just one massive fraud?

It would be perfectly reasonable to say that the effect is not as severe as some scientists claim. That would be a reasonable argument. But you go further than that: You're saying that we can pump as much CO2 as we want into the atmosphere, and it won't have any effect at all! You are disputing one of the most basic theories of planetology.

Please EXCUSE ME if I don't believe you without some sort of evidence.

lol, how about SOLAR PROXIMITY. Venus is closer to the sun, ever thought of that? Radiant energy decreases in intensity over distances. It's the reason why mercury is hotter than mars and pluto and the reason why Neptune is colder than Jupiter.

ROFLMAO! Then tell me, Ace, then how do you explain the fact that Venus is hotter than Mercury? A hell of a lot hotter, in fact: The average temperature on Venus is close to 400 degrees Celsius. That's over 200 degrees hotter than Mercury!

Not to mention that solar proximity alone cannot explain how two planets which are only 40 million kilometres apart (Earth and Venus) can have a difference in surface temperatures of almost 400 degrees! To put things into perspective, consider Mars (which is much further away than Venus): Mars is only some 80 degrees colder than Earth.

False fact. Hydrocarbons have been burning since for billions of years. Global temperatures are cyclic.

Wrong. As the geological record clearly shows, every hot period in the Earth's history coincided with a higher concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Indeed, hydrocarbons have been burning for billions of years - and whenever the resulting greenhouse gases built up in the atmosphere, the Earth got hotter.

Above ALL , do you know what effects the Earth's temperature? The sun. Every year, every decade, every century scientists have linked global temperature activities directly and more importanly, PROPORTIONALLY, to sun activity. I wish I had archived it to show you but picture a graph with three lines on it; one showing trends in sun activity, one showing trends in apparent human-emitted 'greenhouse gases'. The sun activity and global temperature trends match evenly in all trends, instabilities and fluctuations. The 'greenhouse gases' are off doing their own thing, not matching either other line's trends whatsoever.

Funny. I'm very interested in Global Warming myself, and I've read many studies about it. Every table or graph I've ever seen showed the same thing: that the warming trend is proportional to the emissions of greenhouse gases by human activity. Of course, they don't all agree on how much human activity is contributing to it, but the link between gas emissions and global warming is unmistakable over the past 150 years. Both of them are going up at the same pace. In contrast, solar activity has its ups and downs, and sometimes fluctuates a lot in a short time. But that never stops the overall warming trend, mirrored by our gas emissions.

Of course, the sun has been rather calm for the past 10 thousand years. It could start going wild again and plunge us into an ice age, or into an extremely hot period. However, it obviously isn't doing either of those things. So, while the sun stays calm, human activity makes all the difference.

[slaphapy]

About the whole Venus and Earth thing

The distance from the sun actually does have a great effect on the atmosphere and the temperature of the planet.

read this quote from my astronomy book:

To understand the runaway greenhouse effect, imagine that we took Earth from its present orbit and placed it in Venus's orbit, some 30 percent closer to the Sun. At that distance from the Sun, the amount of sunlight striking Earth's surface would be about twice its present level, so the planet would warm up. More water would evaporate from the oceans, leading to an increase in atmospheric water vapor. At the same time, the ability of both the oceans and surface rocks to hold carbon dioxide would diminish, allowing more carbon dioxide to enter the atmosphere. As a result, the greenhouse heating would increase, and the planet would warm still further, leading to a further increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases, and so on. Once started, the process would "run away," eventually leading to the complete evaporation of the oceans, restoring all the original greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Although the details are quite complex, basically the same thing would have happened on Venus long ago, ultimately leading to the planetary inferno we see today.

When Venus was trying to form oceans it was too hot, making basically all the molecules evaporate before they could form water or something else. As well as the sun has actually gotten about twice as bright (and hot) as it was when the oceans were forming on earth.

Also Venus has no magnetosphere, which means that it gets a full blast of solar wind, making it much much hotter. Also it's not really that venus is hotter, it has a higher surface temperature, most likely due to the atmosphere trapping in heat, and also because it has no magnetosphere, and Mercury has no Atmosphere to trap heat.

[SurlyPIG]

So, Ace, you are saying that gases like CO2 and water vapour have no effect on global temperatures whatsoever? The whole greenhouse effect is just one massive fraud?

Not entirely. The extent to which it has been exaggerated has surpassed hyperbole and even lying and has become rather fraudulent, but the principal theory behind the greenhouse effect is valid. Some gases absorb infrared radiation more readilly than others, slightly. That said, its effect in global temperature is miniscule in Earths case. In the quantities produced by humans, even the maximum possible effects are miniscule and not completely cumulative.

It would be perfectly reasonable to say that the effect is not as severe as some scientists claim. That would be a reasonable argument. But you go further than that: You're saying that we can pump as much CO2 as we want into the atmosphere, and it won't have any effect at all! You are disputing one of the most basic theories of planetology.

Please EXCUSE ME if I don't believe you without some sort of evidence.

?? Where did I say this, exactly? If were were burning 1% of the world's oxygen per year and pumping out the same quantity in CO2 then yeah I'd be worried but the emmissions today are still small on the global perspective; not even large enough to alter the atmospheric composition. At this time they are negligible.

ROFLMAO! Then tell me, Ace, then how do you explain the fact that Venus is hotter than Mercury? A hell of a lot hotter, in fact: The average temperature on Venus is close to 400 degrees Celsius. That's over 200 degrees hotter than Mercury!

Mercury is a far cry from Venus. Unless my memory fails me it doesn't even HAVE an atmosphere! When I compared those planets in my post I at least picked pairs that were similar...I don't deny that the atmosphere of both Earth and Venus has an insulative effect, however that balance of gases is not being altered in any measurable portions.

As the geological record clearly shows, every hot period in the Earth's history coincided with a higher concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Indeed, hydrocarbons have been burning for billions of years - and whenever the resulting greenhouse gases built up in the atmosphere, the Earth got hotter.

Tell me, did you look at the WHOLE of what we know or just one portion that serves your argument where emissions and temperature coincided? If not, can you be sure your source didn't? And in case you didn't know the Earth goes through cooling periods too. What accounts for this? I mean, shouldn't the carbon emissions be cumulative with horrible effects? Shouldn't the hydroshpere have evaporated away millions of years ago if what you're saying is true?

Funny. I'm very interested in Global Warming myself, and I've read many studies about it. Every table or graph I've ever seen showed the same thing: that the warming trend is proportional to the emissions of greenhouse gases by human activity. Of course, they don't all agree on how much human activity is contributing to it, but the link between gas emissions and global warming is unmistakable over the past 150 years. Both of them are going up at the same pace. In contrast, solar activity has its ups and downs, and sometimes fluctuates a lot in a short time. But that never stops the overall warming trend, mirrored by our gas emissions.

I just tried for about 20 minutes on google to find a graph that places human CO2 emissions and global temperature on the same graph. I was unable to find one. I wonder why that is. ::)

Allow me to inform you...

Here is what I feel is a rather unbiased information site on global warming that forms no conlucsions, just links to other places and lets you decide for yourself. (just so you don't accuse me of capitalist lies when I post my next graphs)

Here is the graph, still in its native language of research (german I think) showing the link between solar activity and global temperature:

Please note that the most of the warming we have measured over the past century and a half has taken place before 1940. Also be aware that 80% of human CO2 and CH4 emissions (said to be the two 'greenhouse gas juggernauts') were emitted AFTER 1940.

Here is a site which looks at many, MANY factors involved with global temperature, and takes a long look at history, providing the whole story and not using partial data manipulation.

Here's the same graph as above in English from the above site:

Looks pretty proportional to me.

Now, if your theory holds up the shapes of the next two graphs should look proportional. Global temperature followed by human CO2 concentration, be it human-caused or not]

Now if you think THAT is proportional, you must have an active imagination. The CO2 concentration looks almost like a power relationship. The global temperature looked sporadic and unpredictable - the very nature of nature. Tell me, which graph is MORE proportional? The first one or the second two put together? And how MUCH more proportional is that graph?

I do believe I've made my case to acknowledge the facts, so unless you can show me something utterly mortifying that I've never heard of of prove somehow that my sources are bogus, I shal continue to look at the big picture in a clear and objective manner and worry about more important environmental issues than the greenhouse effect.

[Timenn]

The distance to the sun means alot yes. But if it only depended upon that, then Mercurius would have been 0,1 / 0,06 = 1,6 as hot as Venus. While it is more likely to be vice versa.

But it's true that it isn't really fair to compare it with Mercurius, Mercurius has no atmosphere (barely)

But the Earh has, so let's compare it with Earth:

Average temperature of Venus: 720 K

Average temperature of Earth: 295 K

720 / 295 = 2,44 Venus is 2,44 as hot as Earth.

Distance Venus to sun: 0,11 * 10^12 m

Distance Earth to sun: 0,15 * 10^12 m

0,15 / 0,11 = 1,36 According to distances, Venus should only be 1,36 as hot as Earth.

That is a big difference in my view.

And look at the common gasses on Venus: CO₂, N₂

And the common gasses on Earth: N₂, O₂, Ar

So no common gas on Earth named CO₂

Another thing is that Venus looks like Earth in many views, year length, mass, size etc.

So it the global warming that matters very much

[SurlyPIG]

What you're saying is true, Timenn, but it's not looking at the whole picture. There are many other factors that discriminate Venus and Earth. First, who said that the rate at which solar light dissipates is constant? Second, the atmosphere of Venus is WAY WAY WAY more dense and thick than Earth. There's more gas to trap heat and a thicker layer to do it in. The top Venus experts estimate that the atmospheric pressure of Venus is 94.5 TIMES the pressure of the atmosphere of Earth. Walking on the surface of venus would be equal walking under a half-mile of water in the ocean of Earth. Thirdly, the atmospheres are completely different and CO2 is not the only factor in its temperature.

Earth's atmoshpere:

Nitro 78.1%

Oxygen   20.9%

Argon 0.9%

Neon   0.002%

Helium   0.0005%

Krypton 0.0001%  

Hydrogen 0.00005%

Water vapor 0 to 4%

Carbon Dioxide 0.035%

Methane   0.0002%

Ozone   0.000004%

(note that the last four gases are variable)

Venus's atmoshpere:

Carbon dioxide 96%

Nitrogen 4%

Other minor, immeasurable gases include compounds of water, oxygen, and sulfur.

Venus's atmosphere is deficient in nitrogen compared to earth and completely without an ozone layer. These two gases are BIG solar deflectors. They reflect many types of varying intensity solar radiation before it gets very far into Earth's atmosphere. They are also infrared-transmitting. In short, these gases are the total opposite of greenhouse gases. CO2 is one of these. It is completely transmissive of solar radiation but absorbant of solar radiation.

I think its unfair to quantify what the temperature of Venus should be relative to its proximity from the sun, because I wouldn't even know how to begin to quantify the effects of N2 and O3 have on the temperature of the planet. Nor, can you quantify the effects the CO2 is having on its temperature because you the other factors can't be accounted for. The science is not there yet.

[Timenn]

Yes, that is true.

I was more referring to the post of slaphapy5, for I missed your post because I forgot to look at the next page ( :-X)

My point was that the heat of Venus wasn't only determined by distance to sun, but also by atmosphere.

Still it doesn't take away that CO₂ does make it warmer by keeping the heat in.

But I agree that we will never get is at worse as on Venus.

And Earth has ozon layer, but we humans are trying to reduce the thickness of it...

[Acriku]

I heard a report that the hole shrunk? Anybody know about this?

[Timenn]

I heard something about that it didn't grew for a while. But that it was hard to determin what the reason for that was

[SurlyPIG]

Yeah last I heard the ozone hole was either shrinking very slightly or had at least stopped growing.

[slaphapy]

Yes, that is true.

I was more referring to the post of slaphapy5, for I missed your post because I forgot to look at the next page ( :-X)

My point was that the heat of Venus wasn't only determined by distance to sun, but also by atmosphere.

wait a minute I thought I said that the atmosphere was a factor in the heat of Venus, I said that it has no magnetosphere, making it more vulnerable to the solar wind. as well as the atmosphere sort of acts like a insulator or something, trapping the heat in..

(i did say that right? ... hmmm if I didn't, I did in the first post that got screwed up because my stupid internet screwed up and I had to re-write it >:( )

[Timenn]

I got the impression with your post that the heat on Venus was more likely determined by the distance to the sun rather then the atmospheric concept.

[Edric O]

Oops, I had forgotten about this topic. Sorry, Ace. :-

Not entirely. The extent to which it has been exaggerated has surpassed hyperbole and even lying and has become rather fraudulent, but the principal theory behind the greenhouse effect is valid. Some gases absorb infrared radiation more readilly than others, slightly. That said, its effect in global temperature is miniscule in Earths case. In the quantities produced by humans, even the maximum possible effects are miniscule and not completely cumulative.

Well, at least you're not in denial of the obvious. That's a good start.

But why are you downplaying the role of CO2 to such a degree? Its effect on global temperatures is far from minuscule. In fact, scientists have concluded that the combined effects of atmospheric CO2 and water vapour currently raise global temperatures by some 60 degrees Celsius! They may form only a tiny part of the atmosphere, but without them the Earth would be frozen solid. Ozone has a similar importance. There are only minute amounts of ozone in the atmosphere, but without the ozone layer we would get constantly bombarded by UV and other high-energy radiation.

If were were burning 1% of the world's oxygen per year and pumping out the same quantity in CO2 then yeah I'd be worried but the emmissions today are still small on the global perspective; not even large enough to alter the atmospheric composition. At this time they are negligible.

If we were burning 1% of the Earth's oxygen per year, we would exterminate all life on Earth (except some bacteria) within 20-30 years. That's not just "something to worry about", that's the Apocalypse.

And even assuming you're right about the greenhouse effect, I still can't understand why you're saying we shouldn't be worried about greenhouse gas emissions. If Hitler killed less Jews and at a slower rate, would that mean that we shouldn't have worried about the Holocaust?

Here, let me show you one of your own graphs:

CO2 emissions are going THROUGH THE ROOF! You said it yourself - the graph almost looks like a power function! Anything that goes up at this rate is something to worry about!

Mercury is a far cry from Venus. Unless my memory fails me it doesn't even HAVE an atmosphere! When I compared those planets in my post I at least picked pairs that were similar...I don't deny that the atmosphere of both Earth and Venus has an insulative effect, however that balance of gases is not being altered in any measurable portions.

Mercury is indeed very different from Venus (and more similar to the Moon), but nevertheless it is much closer to the Sun, while actually having lower surface temperatures than Venus. The fact that they are so different proves my point: It's not just proximity to the Sun that determines a planet's surface temperatures!

Also, the fact is that Venus is EXTREMELY similar to Earth. In fact, Venus and Earth are practically twins. Venus is the closest planet to Earth, and also the most Earth-like in the Solar System. Yet its surface temperatures are some 300 degrees Celsius higher than ours. Hot enough to melt lead...

And the only thing that is different is the atmosphere. Sure, Venus's atmosphere is nearly 100 times as dense as ours, but this doesn't even come close to accounting for the immense temperature difference. Combined with the fact that Venus is slightly closer to the Sun, it could make up for a little over half of the 300 degrees. But the rest goes to atmospheric composition... the greenhouse gases.

Tell me, did you look at the WHOLE of what we know or just one portion that serves your argument where emissions and temperature coincided? If not, can you be sure your source didn't? And in case you didn't know the Earth goes through cooling periods too. What accounts for this? I mean, shouldn't the carbon emissions be cumulative with horrible effects? Shouldn't the hydroshpere have evaporated away millions of years ago if what you're saying is true?

CO2 goes into the atmosphere, but it can also go OUT of it. Photosynthesis accounts for a lot of the carbon that gets pulled back down to earth, as do the oceans (by trapping carbon in limestone deposits). Therefore, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere doesn't just go up, it can also go down by natural means. In fact, that's what made it possible for life to exist on dry land! The Earth was practically terraformed by plants. And without lifeforms, no planet can sustain an oxygen atmosphere.

And now for your beloved graphs... They're very interesting, I admit. But if that web page you got them from is unbiased, I'm the Pope. I've read the article, and it clearly states that they set out to disprove the existence of the greenhouse effect...

However, they have all my respect for not allowing their own opinions to influence their work. I agree with you that they are a credible source. And if you noticed, their data is by no means completely in your favour. There are the graphs you posted, but there are also others, leading to entirely different conclusions:

There is also some other data I'd like to show you. First of all, notice how global temperatures have been fluctuating for the past 1000 years, then began a very steep rise which coincides almost perfectly with human industrial activity:

And the relationship between CO2 concentration, global temperatures, and population:

And finally, another graph confirming similar data from your own source. Global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentration over the past 160 thousand years. Notice how your correlations between solar activity and temperature only covered the short span of a few hundred years. The long-term trend is dictated by the greenhouse gases:

[SurlyPIG]

Ah, you did see it. I knew you had been away so I bumped...Excellent...

Well, at least you're not in denial of the obvious. That's a good start.

But why are you downplaying the role of CO2 to such a degree? Its effect on global temperatures is far from minuscule. In fact, scientists have concluded that the combined effects of atmospheric CO2 and water vapour currently raise global temperatures by some 60 degrees Celsius! They may form only a tiny part of the atmosphere, but without them the Earth would be frozen solid. Ozone has a similar importance. There are only minute amounts of ozone in the atmosphere, but without the ozone layer we would get constantly bombarded by UV and other high-energy radiation.

I agree about the ozone layer, that is a MUCH more important issue. However, I seriously question that estimate that current CO2 levels raise the temperature by 60�C.

Let's assume that is correct. Current atmospheric CO2 levels are at about 360 parts per million by volume. If 360 ppmv of CO2 raises the temperature by 60�C, then it could be said that 6ppmv of CO2 rases the temperature by 1�C. Now, let's look at the global temperature change of our recent history (historic estimates are not accurate enough). In the last 100 Years, the average global temperature has risen 1�C. However, in the last 100 years, during which nearly all of human-caused CO2 pollution has occurred, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has risen from 290 ppmv to 360ppmv - an increase of 70 ppmv. According to the estimates you provided, there should be a 6 to 1 ratio of CO2 ppmv for every 1�C the Earth's temperature is caused to rise. I obtained a ratio of 70/1, while your quote claims it should be 6/1. Now, there are a few things that skew these numbers in both directions. First of all, measuring in parts per million by volume is a very bad thing. I'll explain that later in the post. I believe measuring in ppmv would skew the numbers down. Now, the second factor, which I and many scientists maintain is a much larger factor in global temperatures is the role of the sun. Given that sun activity has increased in intensity, our estimates of the effect of CO2 in ppmv on the world's temperature would be skewed way up. So where is the real number? I'm not sure.

And even assuming you're right about the greenhouse effect, I still can't understand why you're saying we shouldn't be worried about greenhouse gas emissions. If Hitler killed less Jews and at a slower rate, would that mean that we shouldn't have worried about the Holocaust?

I'm not sayin CO2 pollution is a good thing, frankly I like the Earth the way it is, but what I'm afraid of is that the paranoia surrounding the subject will cause humanity to make rash, unfounded decisions that will likely hurt us even more. Such an example is the Kyoto accord. One of the top global warming scientists at the time of the accord estimated that the Earths temperature would rise another �C in 100 years. Economists estimate that the global cost of implementing the Kyoto accord would cost trillions and trillions of dollars (and I mean the REAL US dollars - though I'm a Canuck I'm not talking in Canadian pennies here). Now, he estimated that if we implemented the Kyoto accord, instead of the world's temperature rising 1 degree in 100 years it would rise 1 degree in 103 years. He said (and he works for the UN environment commission or whatever it's called, BTW) that we should just take those trillions of dollars and spend it on developing third world countries and improving the quality of life for the people of the world. Personally, I think he was right.

Here, let me show you one of your own graphs:

[graph here]

CO2 emissions are going THROUGH THE ROOF! You said it yourself - the graph almost looks like a power function! Anything that goes up at this rate is something to worry about!

I said it appeared as a power relationship, it certainly isn't one. Have a closer look at the Y axis, note that it begins at about 260 ppmv and ends at about 365 ppmv. If it were to start at 0 the graph would look almost flat, followed by a slight incline towards the end from human activity.

Mercury is indeed very different from Venus (and more similar to the Moon), but nevertheless it is much closer to the Sun, while actually having lower surface temperatures than Venus. The fact that they are so different proves my point: It's not just proximity to the Sun that determines a planet's surface temperatures!

I didn't say that the atmosphere didn't, in fact, I agree with you; the atmosphere of Venus plays a large role in its temperature. However, it's not CO2 that does it all.

And the only thing that is different is the atmosphere. Sure, Venus's atmosphere is nearly 100 times as dense as ours, but this doesn't even come close to accounting for the immense temperature difference. Combined with the fact that Venus is slightly closer to the Sun, it could make up for a little over half of the 300 degrees. But the rest goes to atmospheric composition... the greenhouse gases.

You're right that the rest of the difference is accounted for by the atmoshpere, but you're forgetting a much larger, much more important part of the atmospheres of both planets. The abscence of N2 and O3 from the atmosphere of Venus (nitrogen and ozone are large reflectors of many harmful grades of solar radiation) means that more sun gets into Venus' atmosphere. Lastly, Venus has nearly unquantifiable amounts of water vapour. You are correct that water vapour is a big absorber of heat, but it also a HUGE reflector of solar radiation - MUCH more than N2 and O3. If you've ever been sunburned on the bottom of your chin while boating or skiing, you'll no what I'm talking about. Water reflects sunlight in all its states. Without these 'reflectors' the most harmful and the hottest types of solar radiation would penetrate Earth's atmosphere readilly. Nearly all life would fry. Human skin would begin to burn literally in seconds. If you could survive the extreme temperature difference, (which you probably couldn't), you'd need about SPF 10,000 sun screen just to go outside.

And now for your beloved graphs... They're very interesting, I admit. But if that web page you got them from is unbiased, I'm the Pope. I've read the article, and it clearly states that they set out to disprove the existence of the greenhouse effect...

I do believe I said the first site I mentioned is unbiased, the second is clearly not. However, both sites are credible.

However, they have all my respect for not allowing their own opinions to influence their work. I agree with you that they are a credible source. And if you noticed, their data is by no means completely in your favour. There are the graphs you posted, but there are also others, leading to entirely different conclusions:

[graph follows]

Ah, I thought you might post that. However, you've neglected to read their analysis for that graph. They maintained their position and explained it logically:

"A crucial question is: do the air bubbles in glacier ice really always reflect the atmospheric composition during precipitation? There is reason to doubt this. Some investigators have argued that a selective uptake of carbon dioxide in the crystal lattice may cause fractionation of the gases in the bubbles, leading with time in an unpredictable way to a change of the carbon dioxide concentration. This finds support in the fact that the carbon dioxide values obtained when the whole ice sample is vaporized, are usually higher than those from the air that is liberated when the ice is grinded or abrased � the conventional practice in analysing the air bubbles. Also, studies in the palaeobotanical laboratory of Utrecht University show that the stomatal indices of leaves grown between 11,500 and 10,500 years ago, at the end of the last glaciation, indicate atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations considerably higher than the values obtained from bubbles in ice.

Nevertheless, there can be little doubt that considerable fluctuations in the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration did occur in the time interval covered by the ice cores. In addition, the oxygen isotope composition of the ice reflects fluctuations in the global temperature during the precipitation of the snow that in time conversed to the glacial ice. The fluctuations in the carbon dioxide concentration appear to track those in temperature to a remarkable degree, but a closer look reveals that the fluctuations generally leg behind those in temperature. Never does a changing carbon dioxide concentration precede that of temperature. This pattern can be explained by release of carbon dioxide from the oceans during warming and solution during cooling. A changing carbon dioxide concentration was thus not the cause of the change in temperature, but could have amplified it in a positive feedback."

Personally, I'm not exactly sure what that graph represents, which is why I was reluctant to post it and its analysis until I understood it. Also, I don't really like the blue part. The bottom series has too high a margin of error, which makes it difficult to determine when the seriees started its changes. But as I look down I see you've posted one that's much better. :) I shall use that instead.

There is also some other data I'd like to show you. First of all, notice how global temperatures have been fluctuating for the past 1000 years, then began a very steep rise which coincides almost perfectly with human industrial activity:

[graph follows]

And the relationship between CO2 concentration, global temperatures, and population:

[graph follows]

The yellow part of the first graph shows the possible range of error. That is HUGE! Way too big for me. For all we know temperatures were zig-zagging like crazy in there. And given what we have recorded, it probably is (temperatures flucuate a LOT). I've seen ones which are a lot better because they use different methods of determining past global temperatures. I'm not going to comment on the second graph, namely because I don't know which line is which, plus the graph is not situated on a time scale, and even if it were there are huge differences in between the two lines.

And finally, another graph confirming similar data from your own source. Global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentration over the past 160 thousand years. Notice how your correlations between solar activity and temperature only covered the short span of a few hundred years. The long-term trend is dictated by the greenhouse gases:

Ah, this is the gem I've been waiting for. This is a lot like the graph you posted from my second source, but it shows much different information. The conclusions, however, are the same. First of all, I'd like you to note how small that graph is. I believe that was done intentionally. Secondly, I don't know what your site made of this graph, but I'd like to offer a different, and what I believe is a more accurate interperetation.

Like the graph you linked from my post, if you look closely enough you'll see that at no time does a change in CO2 concentration precede a change in temperature. In fact, it is the other way around. Allow me to show you. Below, I've taken the same graph, rotated it 90� clockwise, blown each side up 200%, and drawn thin red lines parallel to each Y axis to make it easier to see when trends occur in each series.

[attachment archived by Gobalopper]

Note that there appears to be a delayed effect in the CO2 graph. Every time the temperature increases, the CO2 increases AFTER the temperature has. Every time the temperature decreases, the CO2 concentration decreases AFTER the temperature. Like the graph from the site I posted, at no time does a change in CO2 concentration precede a change in temperature. :) Every time there is a change in temperature, this change is roughly mirrored with slight delay by a change in CO2 concentration.

Now you must be asking yourself, how can this be? How the heck can temperature effect the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere? Allow me to explain...

I'm guessing that the CO2 concentration for years in the past was measured by analyzing the composition of pockets of air trapped in bubbles formed in sedimentary layers. I'm also guessing that scientists who recorded the values were able to determine the age of these air pockets by perfoming radiological dating tests on certain testible isotopes found at the same layer levels as the pockets. There are two problems with this.

Firstly, they measured in parts per million by volume. The atmosphere's composition varies with elevation. The atmospheric composition at the summit of Mt. Everest will be greatly different than the one in Death Valley, California. By measuring in parts per million by volume, you are only seeing the composition of one tiny point of elevation in the Earth's atmosphere. To obtain an accurate reading, the best way to measure is in total, percentage-based atmospheric composition. Unfortunately, measuring the composition of the atmosphere in the past is not possible. But, measuring the CO2 levels in parts per million by mass would have helped to produce a more accurate reading. Again, this isn't very practical. It's hard to determine the mass of certain particles in an air bubble.

Secondly, gases are different from each other. The entire reason I'm typing this is because CO2 absorbs IR energy more than other gases. At the same time, other gases are effected by head differently than CO2. Both N2 and O2 expand far more than CO2 when they are heated because they lack the carbon atom. This means, when you heat the atmosphere, N2 and O2, while still remaining in all spots, tend to diffuse into higher points of elevation. What does this mean to the measurements? Well, the measurements were taken at ground or below-water levels. When these air bubbles were trapped at times when the temperature was hotter, there was less N2 and O2 at ground level because they had absorbed more heat, became farther apart from each other and been pressured higher into the atmosphere like a balloon, so there appeared to be more CO2 than there actually was. When these air bubbles were trapped at times when the temperature was low, the particles of N2 and O2 (and other gases) were closer together and lower to the ground where these bubbles were trapped. This made it seem like there was less CO2 than there actually was.

Is this at all understandable to you?? I'm in chemistry-babble at the moment. And to think, some people say they'll never use what they learn in chemistry! HA! (sorry)

[Edric O]

- Placeholder Post -

I'll edit this post with my reply when I have the time to type it. I hope that will be some time tomorrow... But for now, I need to get some sleep. It's 2 AM over here and my brain circuits are overheating. :)

Edit (much much later): Wow, looks like the problems with the forum going offline made me completely forget about this topic. Sorry. :- I'll start typing my reply now... (so go take a nap - this is gonna take a looooong time...)

[Edric O]

Right, here we go... sorry for the long wait again. :- (well, it didn't take THAT long to type all of this - I was just being lazy and doing other things ;) )

I agree about the ozone layer, that is a MUCH more important issue.

I'm glad we agree on this point, at least. Ozone layer destruction can have much more dramatic and disastrous effects. But the difference is that the ozone layer can naturally recover in a few hundred years, while the CO2 that we pump into the atmosophere will stay there a hell of a lot longer.

However, I seriously question that estimate that current CO2 levels raise the temperature by 60

[Gobalopper]

Global warming: The French connection :D

[Edric O]

ROFLMAO, Gob, that's the funniest thing I read all day! ;D

But I suppose it's kinda sad, though, seeing how some people actually take that crap seriously...

(it seems that the author never heard of the fact that Global Warming causes extreme weather, such as, you guessed it, blizzards... or that DDT is extremely dangerous for animals and humans because they eat it in their food, not because they have it sprayed on them...)

And the moral of the story is: When something goes wrong, blame it on the French. :D

[SurlyPIG]

I'm glad we agree on this point, at least. Ozone layer destruction can have much more dramatic and disastrous effects. But the difference is that the ozone layer can naturally recover in a few hundred years, while the CO2 that we pump into the atmosophere will stay there a hell of a lot longer.

The more important difference is that ozone depletion has immediate, measurable, discernable consequences. And the consequences of CO2 emissions are so minute they have not even be discernably measured.

That is a perfectly reasonable argument, but you forget one thing: There is no indication that the relationship between CO2 ppmv and temperature is a linear one. In fact, given the complexity of the phenomenon, I think there's a big probability that the relationship is NOT linear. That would mean that assigning a certain fixed temperature increase to a certain fixed CO2 volume is incorrect.

Oh? Then why, oh, why did you post that graph showing the matching relationship between temperature and CO2 concentration in ppmv for the air found in the Antarctic ice sheets? That graph and what you just posted is a contradicting argument.

Is that real information, or just hearsay?

In any case, I'd like to make two points:

1. The Kyoto accord was about a lot more than just Global Warming. It also handled the issue of the Ozone Layer, from what I recall.

2. You and I both know that no one is going to take those trillions of dollars and spend them on improving people's lives. If they wouldn't be used in the fight against Global Warming, they'd only end up in the pockets of rich corporate shareholders, most of which are already millionaires.

It's a quote, of course it's real.

1. No. The Kyoto accord focused on reducing emissions of two things: methane and carbon dioxide. It is completely exclusive to that. Hence the name, "Kyoto Accord on Climate Change" CFC emission do a hell of a lot of bad, but one thing they don't effect is global climate.

2. Industry can only bear so much of the cost of Kyoto in some countries. The rest of it falls upon citizens. In some countries, like almost every nation in Europe, the consequences of Kyoto are profitable. But in other places, like my country for example, 40% of the emission reductions has to fall on the shoulders of people. (BTW the cost to industry is also a cost to the people, as every industry is tied to others, most importantly, transportation. I think there was another thread way back where I explained all of this...But like that link Gob posted, not even Kyoto accepts Kyoto.

So instead of being f(x)=a^x, it's f(x)=a^x + 260 ...so what? CO2 levels are still going up at a frightening speed, and that was my point. And no, the graph doesn't look different if you make the Y axis start at 0. The curve just gets "moved" (there is a proper name for it in geometry, but I don't know how to translate it into English) higher up.

No, actually, the whole curve becomes pretty lame. It's a slight incline line with a wee hill at the end. ;) But that's not important. What's important is the effect (or lack thereof, in this case) of that curve.

Go outside tonight and look at Venus. What do you see? An extremely bright "star". In fact, it's the brightest object in our sky, except for the Sun and the Moon. Venus is covered in thick and highly reflective clouds of sulphuric acid, Ace. It has one of the highest albedoes in the Solar System, and certainly higher than the Earth. With all our N2 and O2 and water, the Earth doesn't reflect anywhere near as much sunlight as Venus!

The amount of H2SO4 in the atmosphere of Venus is less than half of a percent. But that's aside the point. More important is a planet's distance from the sun. I'll quote a site I read about determining planetary albedoes a while ago:

"the amount of sunlight available for planetary reflection is inversely-proportional to the square of the distance of that planet from the Sun"

From this we know that the sun's intensity does not degrade in a linear relationship with the distance the light travels, it is, in fact, a root relationship that decreases faster and faster as distance grows. It's no wonder Venus is so much hotter than Earth, given this.

But you shouldn't dismiss the first graph so easily. Yes, the range of error is huge, but notice that at no point does the maximum temperature go above the temperature that we're recording today. Notice the dotted line that indicates global temperatures in 1998. The entire error range is below it.

That's because they switched measurement mechanisms Edric. The methods used for measuring past temperatures is capable of only showing dubbed-down averages, but I'm guessing the site you got that graph from didn't tell you that. ;) I wonder why? ???

Btw, the graph was drawn using data from ice core samples taken from the Antarctic ice sheet.

In that case, it's the same as the one on the site I referenced and the same analysis applies.

I see your point. However, keep in mind that these are not direct measurements that we're talking about. These are natural indicators. The ice sheet keeps track of temperature and atmospheric composition in different ways. We are taking indirect measurements on them, by looking at their effects on the ice. And it's perectly reasonable to assume that there will be a delay between a phenomenon and its effect on the ice sheet, especially when that phenomenon is a change in the chemical composition of the air. Temperature changes should have much more rapid effects on the ice than the air composition does.

What makes you say that? The atmosphere is a MUCH larger environment than the Antarcic ice sheets. And the delay you refer to is several million years in this case. If you are arguing that the measurement method is flawed, then it is flawed and that information is therefore irrelevant. If there were such a delay on the ice, don't you think the scientists who make record such information would have accounted for that discrepency in their data?

Indeed. You argue that the measurements are imperfect, and I agree. This is exactly the kind of problem that could have caused the false delay in the graphs. There is also the fact that, unlike temperature changes which can be measured by looking at the chemical composition of the ice itself (and which are therefore easier to date accurately), we must rely on trapped air bubbles to determine atmospheric composition. The problem with air bubbles is that, to a certain extent, they can move within the ice. And they would have a natural tendency to move upwards, towards the surface. This would make the trapped air appear younger than it actually is, thus shifting the CO2 concentration graph towards the right - and causing the apparent "delay".

LOL. Ice is solid, Edric. Especially in Antarctica. Bubbles don't float to the surface like they do in water. The could-haves and would-bes are lousy arguments, Edric. Once again, the whole theory of glbal warming is fixated in the realm of the near-impossible. When will there ever be some actual, solid, undisputed evidence of this tripe that warrants all the ludicrous action that's been taken against it?

That is a possibility. However, it can never account for the striking similarities that we have measured. If what you say were the only reason for the correlation between the apparent CO2 concentration and temperature, then the graphs would probably look something like this:

[attachment archived]

In other words, temperature would have some effect on CO2 measurements, but the differences in CO2 concentration would only be a faint echo of temperature variations. This is not what we see in the real graphs:

[graph]

*Bangs head against monitor*

The scale is irrelevant Edric! The SHAPE is what's important. The scale is manipulated to clearly show similarities in shape. And even in your fake graph, the shape is the same, the scale isn't. Does this make sense to you? I'm having trouble you actually believe what you just posted, that you really can't get your mind around the graph...you're WAY smarter than that.

The temperature variations and the CO2 concentration ones are TOO similar to be caused by something like the effect you described.

That's laughable Edric! The unversal cas law IS a constant relationship, if co2-temperature was, then it would be plainly and easily visibile within recorded history, which is NOT the case at all. Like I said before, if your explanation is correct, than the general shape of these trends would be identical:

Leg to of inaccurate historical measurements and ice caps and glaciated layers and look at the immediate past. Our recent, accurate recordings debunk this idea. Don't be so quick to jump to paraniod assumptions. There is a better explanation, after all:

[Gobalopper]

Looks like hydrogen might not be so great:

Hydrogen Fuel Cells May Hurt Ozone

Scientists say the new technology could lead to greater destruction of the ozone layer that protects Earth from cancer-causing ultraviolet rays.

Researchers said in a report Thursday saying that if hydrogen replaced fossil fuels to run everything from cars to power plants, large amounts of hydrogen would drift into the stratosphere as a result of leakage and indirectly cause increased depletion of the ozone.

"This would result in cooling of the lower stratosphere and the disturbance of ozone chemistry," the researchers wrote. It would mean bigger and longer-lasting ozone holes in both the Arctic and Antarctic regions, where drops in ozone levels have been recorded over the past 20 years. They estimated that ozone depletion could be as much as 8 percent.

[Edric O]

Alright, I'm back...

First of all, I'd like to ask Gob one thing: Why are you so deeply anti-environmentalistic? You seem to love making posts against environmentalism, as if everything was just fine and mankind wasn't responsible for driving hundreds of species to extinction and poisoning the air, land and water of the whole world...

Then again, maybe I'm wrong, and it's just the fact that you don't post very often in PRP that made you seem that way...

And now for our argument, Ace:

The more important difference is that ozone depletion has immediate, measurable, discernable consequences. And the consequences of CO2 emissions are so minute they have not even be discernably measured.

On the other hand, the atmosphere IS warming. FAST. That is a proven fact. Of course, you claim that it's all really because of the sun, and our massive CO2 emissions have nothing to do with it... But is it really worth the risk to simply DO NOTHING about it?

Oh? Then why, oh, why did you post that graph showing the matching relationship between temperature and CO2 concentration in ppmv for the air found in the Antarctic ice sheets? That graph and what you just posted is a contradicting argument.

No, the graph and the comment you're replying to are investigating two different possibilities. The CO2-temperature relationship may be linear, or it may be not. In case you didn't know, scientists work with probabilities all the time. Welcome to the wonderful world of science!

It's a quote, of course it's real.

1. No. The Kyoto accord focused on reducing emissions of two things: methane and carbon dioxide. It is completely exclusive to that. Hence the name, "Kyoto Accord on Climate Change" CFC emission do a hell of a lot of bad, but one thing they don't effect is global climate.

2. Industry can only bear so much of the cost of Kyoto in some countries. The rest of it falls upon citizens. In some countries, like almost every nation in Europe, the consequences of Kyoto are profitable. But in other places, like my country for example, 40% of the emission reductions has to fall on the shoulders of people. (BTW the cost to industry is also a cost to the people, as every industry is tied to others, most importantly, transportation. I think there was another thread way back where I explained all of this...But like that link Gob posted, not even Kyoto accepts Kyoto.

Quote or not, I'd still like to see your source for it. If you claim that the Kyoto accord won't really make a difference to global warming, I want to see some proof.

1. Okay. I wasn't sure about that. Thanks for the info.

2. Oh, please excuse me if I don't feel sorry about the fact that rich westerners won't be able to afford quite as much luxury because of the oh-so-evil Kyoto accord! There are people in the world who are STARVING TO DEATH, Ace, and you complain that you'll have to pay a little more for modern transportation? This is beyond ridiculous! If Kyoto was affecting the poor and unfortunate, then I could understand your argument. But it affects the rich and well-off!

No, actually, the whole curve becomes pretty lame. It's a slight incline line with a wee hill at the end. But that's not important. What's important is the effect (or lack thereof, in this case) of that curve.

Ace's argument #1: There is no relationship between CO2 emissions and global temperature because the graph of CO2 emissions looks almost like a power function.

Ace's argument #2: In fact, the graph of CO2 emissions is nothing like a power function AT ALL!

Is it just me or are you horribly contradicting yourself?

Btw, if you're telling me that pumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere will have no effect at all, please excuse me while I laugh my ass off...

The amount of H2SO4 in the atmosphere of Venus is less than half of a percent. But that's aside the point. More important is a planet's distance from the sun. I'll quote a site I read about determining planetary albedoes a while ago:

{quote follows]

Now we're going around in circles. You've said this thing before, and I reminded you that it doesn't account for the fact that Venus is much hotter than Mercury, while Mercury is much closer to the Sun!

You replied that it's because Venus has an atmosphere and Mercury doesn't, therefore admitting that the atmosphere plays an important part in determining surface temperatures, enough to negate the effects of the distance to the Sun!

Quod erat demonstrandum.

That's because they switched measurement mechanisms Edric. The methods used for measuring past temperatures is capable of only showing dubbed-down averages, but I'm guessing the site you got that graph from didn't tell you that. I wonder why?

So if you don't approve of how we measure past temperatures, then how can you argue that the current rise in temperature is nothing out of the ordinary?

What makes you say that? The atmosphere is a MUCH larger environment than the Antarcic ice sheets. And the delay you refer to is several million years in this case. If you are arguing that the measurement method is flawed, then it is flawed and that information is therefore irrelevant. If there were such a delay on the ice, don't you think the scientists who make record such information would have accounted for that discrepency in their data?

Take a better look at the graph, Ace. The scale is not millions, it's thousands of years. And the delay is so small that even on this scale you can hardly see it. It is of a few hundred years at most. That's small enough for me.

The CO2 measurement is not flawed. Only the dating of layers might be a bit off. (a few hundred years is a tiny error)

LOL. Ice is solid, Edric. Especially in Antarctica. Bubbles don't float to the surface like they do in water. The could-haves and would-bes are lousy arguments, Edric. Once again, the whole theory of glbal warming is fixated in the realm of the near-impossible. When will there ever be some actual, solid, undisputed evidence of this tripe that warrants all the ludicrous action that's been taken against it?

Looks like someone skipped Geography 101... If ice is as "solid" as you think, then didn't you ever ask yourself how come glaciers flow?

The fact is that ice acquires plastic-like properties under high pressure. Therefore, when a lot of ice is stacked (as in a glacier), the lowest layers begin to behave like an easily deformable material and the glacier starts flowing. Ice flows are extremely slow, of course (that's why glaciers appear to be static to the naked eye), but in time they produce things like glacial plains, fjords, etc.

Btw, if theories and probabilities aren't good enough for you, then I suggest you give up on science altogether. And if making gasoline and bus tickets more expensive for the people of the richest countries counts as "ludicrous action" to you... you are a lost cause.

The Earth IS warming, Ace, even you can't deny that. Now we can either do nothing and hope a miracle stops it or we can try to limit our own contribution to global warming! So which will it be?

*Bangs head against monitor*

The scale is irrelevant Edric! The SHAPE is what's important. The scale is manipulated to clearly show similarities in shape. And even in your fake graph, the shape is the same, the scale isn't. Does this make sense to you? I'm having trouble you actually believe what you just posted, that you really can't get your mind around the graph...you're WAY smarter than that.

Speaking of manipulating scales, you argued yourself that the scale on your own graphs which show clear differences between CO2 and temperature rises are in fact WRONG... (see my comment above about contradicting yourself)

That's laughable Edric! The unversal cas law IS a constant relationship, if co2-temperature was, then it would be plainly and easily visibile within recorded history, which is NOT the case at all. Like I said before, if your explanation is correct, than the general shape of these trends would be identical:

[graphs follow]

Leg to of inaccurate historical measurements and ice caps and glaciated layers and look at the immediate past. Our recent, accurate recordings debunk this idea. Don't be so quick to jump to paraniod assumptions. There is a better explanation, after all:

[graph follows]

So, to sum up your argument:

CO2 concentration is growing at a much faster rate than temperature, so there is no relationship between them. But we shouldn't worry about all the CO2 we pump into the atmosphere because the scale on that CO2 graph is actually wrong, and CO2 concentration is actually growing at a slower rate than it seems. The actual reason for global warming is the Sun, and we can see that there is a clear relationship between distance to the Sun and global temperatures. But somehow this only applies to the Earth, because when we compare Mercury to Venus we can see that the atmosphere actually has the final word.

It seems to me that it's nothing more than a long series of ridiculous self-contradictions mixed with a strong dose of denial of reality, in order to desperately preserve a policy of environmental destruction that is leading us all towards catastrophe.

Of course, the real reason why some people try to pretend Global Warming doesn't exist is simple: MONEY, MONEY and yet more MONEY. If they can't pollute as much as they want, big corporations will have smaller profits.

[Gobalopper]

I just believe the Earth is far more complicated then we know and it is far too easy to just blame it all on humans. I do agree that we should look into treating the environment better but I don't think over-regulating it is the way to do that.

To me things like the sun and other factors that are out of our control play a much bigger role then we do in affecting our environment.

[Duneguy]

k im just here to throw in my 2 cents, so dont yell at me..

alright i am not a wiz at all this writing and stuff so bare with my theory;s and such

ok it is said(well if u believe in evolution.) that the world's tempatures used to be a lot different. some say that alaska might be the place to be in the future and that hawaii might be only be good for skiing for all we know. the thing is, the plant is always changing. may not seem like it but there are thousands of thing contrbuting to the change of ozone, and its a natural process anyway we are just giving it a boost in time. so the way i figure it, whatever is going to happen is going to happen anyway. well some say that the world will be flodded and we will grow fins behind our ears and scream theres land ive seen it blah blah, like on waterworld. well i truly cant see that happening not in the lifetime of our sun. I agree with the some that say the change in water levels wont amount to much, because in fact they wont. imagine how big and deep the ocean is.. there isnt enough ice in the world to melt and make a SIGNIFIGANT difference. unless u live in like the netherlands or wherever. (*tries to remember geography class*) where they are below sea level. yeah you will have a problem, but hey were humans we will always overcome.***thinks*** anyhow antartica has enough ice to change climate thats it pretty much, i figure that the ocean will get somewhat deeper and encroach on the mainlands of every country, dangerously around china and indonesia and such singe they are islands and since 4/5's of chinas population in on the seaboard side. but i dont see global warking to become a serious threat. well thats my 2 cents, please disagree with me and tell me how im wrong, thats th fun part.