I'm going to attempt to answer you, even though I find no value in doing so... I can already tell you how this is going to go. I'm going to post valid
arguments against your positions, and you're going to say I'm wrong and misunderstanding things. Then, I'm going to counter you by saying the exact
same thing about you. Then it will go back and forth for a while, until I find a better way to spend my time, and you'll say you won because I never
answered you back... sound about right? I thought so.
Originally posted by NoHierarchy
How can you SERIOUSLY sit there and even THINK of purporting that CO2 isn't central to trapping atmospheric heat (i.e. infrared radiation bouncing
back from the surface of the Earth)
CO2 is responsible for 80% of the initial forcing mechanism of the greenhouse effect/global warming:
Denier nonsense? Deluded? So there is not two sides to this debate, it's all wrapped up and you're the deliverer who will fix my ill-conceived ideas?
First of all, I never once said anything about CO2 not being a part of the process involved in climate. It is however, not central. Climate science is
made up of ALL disciplines of science, including things such as chemistry, which while not central nor the only understanding of how climate works,
plays its part. The ONE paper I cited from the good doctor Nahle, is not considered wrong or illegitimate because he is a biologist, and happens to be
a Scientific Research Director, who to obtain such a position, usually entails some level of detail on how the scientific process works. In his paper,
he shows how CO2 absorbtion and emission effects temperature using very basic (and commonly accepted) formula for radiative heat transfer. Why is this
It's because it measures how LONG CO2 retains the energy from the radiative process and how much it emits back out.
This can not just be
ignored, no matter what discipline of science you are in. I suggest you actually read the paper and discount IT, rather than ME. It is in complete
alignment with Dr. Hoyt Hottel and Klaus Lackner's calculations as well, so good luck.
Ok, you'll need to read this very carefully because it contains specific language that you need to focus on to understand:
THE ATMOSPHERE DOES NOT WARM ITSELF ACCORDING TO CO2 AS A PERCENTAGE OF ITSELF. IT WARMS ITSELF IN PROPORTION TO TOTAL GREENHOUSE GASES. In
other words... in TRACE amounts (as compared to the entirety of the atmosphere's composition), CO2 can induce GREAT amounts of heat trapping. If there
was no CO2 in our atmosphere, the planet would be 60 degrees cooler.
Since you want to be condescending, I'll be the bigger man here.
CO2 can induce heat trapping, I never said anything to the contrary. My argument is how much heat it traps and for how long that lasts. If you want to
challenge my depth of knowledge in certain areas of science, that doesn't exclude other facts in other areas. If CO2 traps so much heat for such a
long time, why does it get cooler at night? Simple... the energy radiates into space. Feedback versus forcing, big difference.
And please provide a source for your claim of a 60 degree difference in temperature without CO2.
If you'd read my previous posts, you'd see that I posted 2 sources on what ppm CO2 levels were when polar glaciation began, which means that is the
same ppm it would take (approximately) to end current polar glaciation. That ppm was between 600-700ppm, FAR from where we are today, and caused
NATURALLY. So, while CO2 can induce great amounts of trapping, it takes an enormous amount of it to do so in great amounts.
The Vostok ice cores absolutely BOLSTER the theory of Global Warming, and the actual scientists who drill and study these cores will tell you so. Stop
your blatant and stupid lies about this, it's childish.
As for that ridiculous study you linked, Nasif Nahle is NOT A REPUTABLE SCIENTIST. He is not a Climatologist and is a nobody in the science community.
Not only that, but he's obviously a quack-scientist denier found on a cornucopia of ridiculous denier propaganda sites, but NO reputable scientific
institutions. Yeah... critical thinking is needed here... and you're in desperate need of some.
It's nice how quickly you can dismiss someone's work just because it doesn't fit into your mental model of climate science. What's a climatologist?
Please explain, because there is no such thing. It is a MULTI-DISCIPLINARY FIELD. There is no one person or one field that has all of the knowledge
required to tackle such a feat. Believing otherwise shows who is childish in this debate.
As for Vostok and my "childish lies", I have the RAW Vostok ice core data, and NOWHERE in it does it bolster GW. As I stated, it shows temperature
came BEFORE CO2 increases, and it's easy to show. I'd like to see your sources that show otherwise. Where's your proof?
edit on 10-1-2013 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)