20 Reasons to be Skeptical of Man-Made Global Warming

a reply to: MaxTamesSiva

I mean that the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is dependent upon the temperature of the atmosphere. It's a basic concept and not that complicated.

The warmer it is the more water vapor the air can retain. The cooler, the less.

Water vapor content is determined by atmospheric heat. CO2 content is not. When increasing CO2 causes heat to increase, it can cause water vapor content to increase. It is a feedback effect.

More CO2 = warmer = more H2O = warmer still.

Less CO2 = cooler = less H2O = cooler still.

Water vapor does not govern.

I am no climate super duper expert scientist, but I know some history The climate has been cyclic throughout our planets life. It will go on. The record of it is written not just in historical texts, but within the soil, rocks, ice, and ocean sediment.. not to mention in the bones and items we graverob to oogle and poke at. Its all there.

The problem is... people are stupid and add to it. Myself included... sorry not sorry. We can never change these necessary cycles. We can add to the BS that happens within the cycles. Microcosmic and macrocosmic. We do lots of stupid stuff.. humans. Dont underestimate the power of the Earth though. Regeneration is what it does, but sometimes that doesnt agree with the critters up top, but it goes on. We matter very little to it.

The greater problem is... people are so stuck on having information fed to them about things like baby birds.. chewed and puked.. that they dont see the problem in whole. Or lack of problem in whole. They see little slivers and hang on it. They war and threaten over these slivers, but if for 2 seconds people would see the whole of it then we could work within these cycles.. and there are so many cycles. I blame it on hubris. Who knew adding or deleting a chromosome here or there would make a being as smart but stupid as we are.

a reply to: Phage
Thank you for explaining that, so CO2 rules even its amount is negligible? What amount of CO2 will cause a feedback effect? Do you mind explaining it again, how does it work? I barely passed organic chemistry and that was a long time ago.

a reply to: MaxTamesSiva

What amount of CO2 will cause a feedback effect?

Any amount. The CO2 concentration a million years ago and the CO2 concentration today affects the heat retained by the atmosphere and thereby the amount of water vapor. If the atmosphere warms, more water vapor. If the atmosphere cools, less water vapor. CO2, on the other hand, just keeps increasing as long as we keep burning fossil fuels.

Do you mind explaining it again, how does it work?

As I said the concept is simple. If you didn't get it the first time I don't think a second time will help. It doesn't have much to do with chemistry.

a reply to: Phage

Any amount. The CO2 concentration a million years ago and the CO2 concentration today affects the heat retained by the atmosphere and thereby the amount of water vapor. If the atmosphere warms, more water vapor. If the atmosphere cools, less water vapor. CO2, on the other hand, just keeps increasing as long as we keep burning fossil fuels.

The figures that I got is about 3.6% of greenhouse gases is CO2, 95% is water vapor, the remainder accounts for methane etc. Do you think planting more trees is a viable solution to make up for burning fossil fuels? Is it true that recent satellite photos of the earth shows that there is a measurable indication that some forested areas around the world are slightly increasing?

As I said the concept is simple. If you didn't get it the first time I don't think a second time will help. It doesn't have much to do with chemistry.

That I can understand even if I'm not as smart as you. I appreciate it.

a reply to: MaxTamesSiva

Your figures comport with my understanding. CO2 is the 2nd most abundant greenhouse gas. And we keep trying to increase it.

I think planting trees is fine but I don't think more trees will have a significant impact on CO2 concentrations. Trees are not very significant as a carbon sink in the long run. They die and decay and the carbon within them returns to the atmosphere. Satellite imagery shows "greening", yes. Mostly in China and India, of all places, due to reforestation in those places.

a reply to: Phage

Your figures comport with my understanding. CO2 is the 2nd most abundant greenhouse gas. And we keep trying to increase it.

Pardon the analogy.

If we were both participants in a race with 3 others, you finished first and I finished second but I was way, way, way behind you, I wouldn't brag that I finished second, which kinda sounds cool without a context.

I still don't understand the simple explanation you gave about the role of CO2 and the chemistry of the feedback effect (not your fault, but mine), can this be duplicated in a lab or just simulated in computer models? I guess what I'm trying to understand is why CO2 has a profound effect in small amounts? All I can fall back to to understand this is my sense of proportion.

Again, the figure that I got regarding the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is about .008 of 1% annually. If we double it, it still is negligible. Are you comfortable with the figure?... I have to look up the meaning of comport.

I think planting trees is fine but I don't think more trees will have a significant impact on CO2 concentrations. Trees are not very significant as a carbon sink in the long run. They die and decay and the carbon within them returns to the atmosphere.

Maybe if we can double our efforts in reforestation and gradually decrease our consumption of fossil fuels by using other alternative sources of clean energy, it might work? No?

Satellite imagery shows "greening", yes. Mostly in China and India, of all places, due to reforestation in those places.

Could China and India be atoning for their global warming/climate change sins?