Hi everyone,

I just read through the "Global Warming: The Politics and Science and Fear" post and got something out of it but it wasn't as "efficient" a learning experience as I had hoped.

Anyway, let's assume that one side of the GW argument is represented pretty well by Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth. And even if many on that side admit that it exaggerates the case in parts, or maybe doesn't go far enough in parts, it's not far off the general argument on that side.

I'd like to be directed to an article that does equal justice to the other side of the argument. Namely, that GW is happening but it's not the big deal it's being made out to be.

I read a few articles posted by Sandy, but usually earlier than halfway through the agenda was clear. I'm looking for one that is not clearly right-wing biased, but uses facts to counter some of the cliches the AG/IT propenents throw out all the time.

Thanks

There aren't any.

I'm sure you can get a right winger to say Global Warming is an international hoax and that it is friendly for our environment to emit toxins into our atmosphere around the clock.

I have had plenty of great articles by well-respected global experts but I can't post anything that doesn't support GW or I will get more infractions.:rolleyes:

Please, post them. I'd love a good read.

I can PM them to you. I don't want to get banned.:rolleyes:

Sure, go ahead.

(Thank goodness I got to post number 20. I can finally start PMing!)

P.S.: Why would you get banned? Seriously, if they're from actual scientists, then I can't see how anybody on these forums (unless they were some sort of scientists on this kind of topic themselves) could respond.

Sure, go ahead.

(Thank goodness I got to post number 20. I can finally start PMing!)

P.S.: Why would you get banned? Seriously, if they're from actual scientists, then I can't see how anybody on these forums (unless they were some sort of scientists on this kind of topic themselves) could respond.

Actually, she misstated the situation (as usual). She had become rather obnoxious by posting every single cold weather aberration she could find - like a record snowfall somewhere. Several of us, including those who believe climate change is real, tried to explain to her that isolated events meant very little when compared to the overall average. She just never seemed to understand that simple fact. :shrug:

>> I can't post anything that doesn't support GW or I will get more infractions.>>

Climate of FEAR !!!!
>>> She had become rather obnoxious >... to whom ? you ya idiot!
>> Several of us >>> all cast in stone, popularists.... LOL idiots, anti-scientific.... BTW this is supposed to be a science forum... LOL, with no scientists !

great forum

Hey I can't even post in some threads... oooh I am a definite freak, LOL, pulling apart religious science. I have been here (on this -planet) for some time, sorry the quality of intellect is no where near high enough for cretins to have such anti-scientific attitudes. Even lower; it must be an ego problem at the top, like really LOW.

>> I can't post anything that doesn't support GW or I will get more infractions.>>

Climate of FEAR !!!!
>>> She had become rather obnoxious >... to whom ? you ya idiot!
>> Several of us >>> all cast in stone, popularists.... LOL idiots, anti-scientific.... BTW this is supposed to be a science forum... LOL, with no scientists !

great forum

Nope, I never gave her a single infraction, just tried to explain 'averages' to her - with no response.

But your just having called me an idiot (for no reason) just got YOU one. :bugeye:

LOL, one upmanship eh!

You must be quite paranoid. Oh is that another...

I was never talking to you, oh BTW who are you ?

Insignificant creature to me, lad.

Still no articles of an alternative view to Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth.

Anything... just so I can say I gave the other side a chance....

Or maybe somone a little less biased can choose one of Sandy's from the other thread that is the most factual?

Putting together an actual response to Al Gore's obsession of several years, equivalent to that presentation he's been honing in dozens of public venues and correcting with the best advice and help, would be a hell of a lot of work.

If you pick one thing at a time - say the use of graphs and pictures, or the assertions regarding invasive insects, or the CO2/ temp correlation mechanism, you might have better luck.

Okay, thanks.

What do you think is the biggest flaw in the Inconvenient Truth?

Anybody curious in hearing the other side, here you go

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

After reading through it all, human contribution to the greenhouse effect is 0.28%

LOL, one upmanship eh!

You must be quite paranoid. Oh is that another...

I was never talking to you, oh BTW who are you ?

Indeed you were! I was my statement about her being obnoxious that you included in your reply.

Insignificant creature to me, lad.

Ahhh, but not nearly as insignificant as you are to me. I've seen your version of "science" here in many places and it plainly stinks. Mostly distortions and twisted facts.

Anybody curious in hearing the other side, here you go

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

After reading through it all, human contribution to the greenhouse effect is 0.28%
Excellent link there Jeff, thanks!

Remember, the percentage of CO2 in the total atmosphere is about 0.038%.

And of that tiny fraction another small fraction comes from human industrial sources...the vast majority is from natural sources.

Assuming the 0.038% figure is correct, we then need to ask: how much additional carbon dioxide would lead to climate change?

Remember, the percentage of CO2 in the total atmosphere is about 0.038%.

And of that tiny fraction another small fraction (in the single digits) comes from human industrial sources...the vast majority is from natural sources. According to the observatories at Mauna Loa and elsewhere, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen by more than a third (as much as a half, or even more) in the past couple of hundred years, and essentially all of that accumulation is from fossil fuel combustion.

None of the recent accumulation is from "natural" sources, as far as can be determined from isotope analysis. So although the majority of the total is from "natural" sources, it is not a "vast" majority. Nor is the accumulation insignificant, either proportionately or in its potential effects.

The recent accumulation would be enough, according to basic physics, to raise the lower atmosphere temperatures by much more than they have in fact been raised, according to direct temperature measurements, so other factors must be countering or damping the CO2 effects. That is not surprising, as climate is a very complex system.

That intuitively small natural concentration of CO2 is the main difference between a planet with liquid water on the surface and a planet covered with ice and snow. The addition of another 50% to that concentration will probably have at least proportionate effects.

Jeff's link, above, contains one statement directly at odds with data available elsewhere - that the accumulation of CO2 recently is from "natural" sources. The isotope analysis from Mauna Loa says otherwise.

It contains, more importantly, a serious deception: that water vapor is independent of CO2. Without the CO2 concentration, there would be little or no water vapor in the air - it would be frozen out, and part of the solid ground. With the extra warming from CO2, more water vaper can accumulate in the air (hot air holds more water) and its heat trapping effects amplify the CO2 direct effects. Extra evaporation and retention of water vapor is one of the serious possible effects of CO2 accumulation.

The climate is more or less in equilibrium as far as water vaper is concerned, at any given time - the oceans are large, water is always available. Temporary increases in atmospheric water vapor fall as rain and snow elsewhere, condense as dew and are absorbed, create storms that carry them over dry land as rain, etc. Extra water vapor does not accumulate by itself and drive the system to other equilibria, cause increases in CO2 or other greenhouse gasses, etc.

The climate is apparently (so far as we can tell) being driven out of its old equilibrium by human source CO2. It is not being taken out, it is affecting water vapor and other factors, and it is accumulating.

re flaws: Gore's movie is a work of persuasive rhetoric, not science, so the flaws would be not scientific but in persuasion - leaving a definitely false impression, somehow. Deceiving. The only major one I can think of is the impression lots of people got that it was CO2 increases that started and controlled past warming trends. That is unlikely, and the actual situation much more complicated. Gore didn't actually say that, but the way he said what de did say seems to have left that impression frequently.

According to the observatories at Mauna Loa and elsewhere, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen by more than a third, and essentially all of that accumulation is from fossil fuel combustion.

None of the recent accumulation is from "natural" sources, as far as can be determined from isotope analysis. So although the majority of the total is from "natural" sources, it is not a "vast" majority. Nor is the accumulation insignificant, either proportionately or in its potential effects.

Yes, the CO2 levels have gone up a third, from 0.03 to 0.038 percent of the total atmosphere.

Seeing as the ice core data indicates that its never been above 0.03% (in the last 650,000 years) I think we can assume that the 0.008 increase is from industrial sources.

Add to this that 95% of the greenhouse effect is from water vapour and you are left with a microscopic industrial CO2 influence on the world wide scale.

Seeing as the ice core data indicates that its never been above 0.03% (in the last 650,000 years) I think we can assume that the 0.008 increase is from industrial sources. No assumption of that kind is necessary - isotope analysis of the CO2 indicates fossil fuel combustion as its source.

Add to this that 95% of the greenhouse effect is from water vapour and you are left with a microscopic industrial CO2 influence on the world wide scale. The figure of 95% is too high.

But that's not the main problem, there. The two main problems with that argument are

1) that the water vapor is not independent of the CO2 effect. Most of the water vapor effect is a consequence of CO2 warming. Without the CO2, all the water would be frozen and the air very dry.

As the CO2 warming increases - if it does, as predicted - more water vapor may (is predicted to) be held in the air and the water vapor effect would then increase and add to the CO2 direct boost.

The CO2 and the water vapor are not independent, and the CO2 drives the water vapor, not the other way around (ignoring the fact that all the plants would die without water, of course).

and 2) the total greenhouse gas effect is large, and the water vapor is already factored into it - without it the planet would be much colder. So the allegedly small percentage increase from the allegedly small accumulation of CO2 (your numbers are not standard, there) is enough to boost the atmosphere temps by several degrees - that's the disaster, if it happens.

The possible warming effect that has everyone worried is not large, on an absolute scale - the planet is running around 300 degrees K, and the extra warming boosts it by maybe 5 - 7 degrees K, or maybe 2% (in round numbers). That 2% will be a disaster, if it happens quickly, to human civilization.

Most of the water vapor effect is a consequence of CO2 warming. Without the CO2, all the water would be frozen and the air very dry.

As the CO2 warming increases - if it does, as predicted - more water vapor may (is predicted to) be held in the air and the water vapor effect would then increase and add to the CO2 direct boost.

The notion that CO2 levels determine water vapour concentrations is based on the idea that CO2 levels determine temperature...thus in turn allowing for more or less water to be held in a gaseous state.

For this to be true it would first have to be proven that CO2 levels do in fact determine temperature...which the ice core record does NOT indicate at all.

The record indicates that CO2 changes lag behind temp changes by approx 800 years.

So the allegedly small percentage increase from the allegedly small accumulation of CO2 (your numbers are not standard, there) is enough to boost the atmosphere temps by several degrees...
I dont know what you mean by 'standard', but I dont think Wiki would post anything other than the most widely accepted stats on atmospheric gases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere

Nitrogen 78.084%
Oxygen 20.946%
Argon 0.934%
Carbon dioxide 0.038%
Water vapor 1%
Other 0.002%

For this to be true it would first have to be proven that CO2 levels do in fact determine temperature...which the ice core record does NOT indicate at all. The ice core record is not the basis for that conclusion. Physics is.

The only thing the ice core shows is that CO2 did not begin, or start, the previous warming cycles.

That doesn't matter, to this one. Humans are not waiting for the next astronomical warming to indirectly boost CO2 concentrations (which then amplify the irrdiance effects) - we are boosting them now. The extra CO2 will, unless prevented somehow, trap enough heat to raise the lower atmosphere by at least 5 degrees K (with all subsidiary effects, such as extra water vapor, figured in). This is a different mechanism from past warming cycles. Unless some unknown and unexpected factor (clouds the most likely suspect) figures in, the rise will be both faster and higher than past temperature rises.

Humans are not waiting for the next astronomical warming to indirectly boost CO2 concentrations (which then amplify the irrdiance effects) - we are boosting them now.
Yes we are.

But I suggest that a 0.008% increase in CO2 is not enough of an atmospheric change to seriously influence temperature.

Considering its microscopic proportional influence relative to water vapour.

From 1940-1975 the average global temperature was actually going down.