G
ganjavih
Guest
The temperature today was two degrees cooler than the same time last year! It's proven! Global warming is a fraud!
|
|
|
C
cdl42
Guest
Last year after a meeting at City Hall I had a heckuva time trying to get a woman to understand why it was a bad idea to use the hurricanes as evidence of global warming. To her, it seemed that you were either a paranoid beliver who saw "evidence" everywhere (like her) or you were a corporate denier. I think I finally got her to understand that using easily disproven information to support your cause does more harm than good.
Sadly, I think these attitudes are quite common. Take this thread as an example.
Sadly, I think these attitudes are quite common. Take this thread as an example.
B
bizorky
Guest
In short, yes C02 does help the atmosphere stay warm, but oceans are warmed by the sun and far better at holding their temperature than air due to density differences. Water vapour is the primary cause of the greenhouse effect. If there was no greenhouse effect in the atmosphere, the planet would be frozen.
It is important to remember that C02 is a natural element of the atmosphere, and is produced by natural sources, and in quantities far greater than human production.
C
cdl42
Guest
"It is important to remember that C02 is a natural element of the atmosphere, and is produced by natural sources, and in quantities far greater than human production."
Yes, but how have those natural sources changed over the past few decades as compared to human sources?
Here are some answers/retorts to your points:
How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?
How much of the recent CO2 increase is due to human activities?
Calculating the greenhouse effect
Water vapour: feedback or forcing?
Yes, but how have those natural sources changed over the past few decades as compared to human sources?
Here are some answers/retorts to your points:
How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?
How much of the recent CO2 increase is due to human activities?
Calculating the greenhouse effect
Water vapour: feedback or forcing?
C
Chuck100
Guest
The sun is a massive source of energy, and therefore raises the temperature of the oceans during the day. When the sun has set, that energy is released, which is why it gets colder at night. The rate that heat is gained or lost is proportional to the difference in temperature between the two bodies. In the fall when the water temperature might be 10 degrees, it loses heat much more rapidly at night when the air temperature is -20 than when it's +5.
If CO2 raises global air temperatures at any given time by even as little as 1 degree, it will still reduce the rate that the oceans release heat back into the atmosphere at night. When you extrapolate that over the entire surface of the globe, that means enormous quantities of heat are being retained that would have otherwise been lost if the air was 1 degree cooler.
Another thing is that a material's ability to retain heat has nothign to do with its density. That property is quantified by its specific heat. To illustrate this, compare copper to water. Copper is thousands of times denser than air, however one kg of air holds three times as much heat as one kg of copper at the same temperature. If, hypothetically, the atmosphere was comprised of an equal mass of copper
, the temperature would cool off much faster at night than it does with air even though that's completely counter intuitive.
B
bizorky
Guest
cdl, the "answers" you link to are still part of the debate.
The fact of the matter is that certainties concerning the short or long-term effect of these emissions are not easy to come by due to a whole set of complex variables. The "conclusions" that are so often stated (on either end of the spectrum) are, so far, not the final statements on what is happening (or not happening).
The second article is interesting as the author forgot to mention volcanic activity as a natural source of C02. It is also worth noting that C02 content in the atmosphere has been variable over time - that is before human contributions. In some cases, C02 concentrations have (in the past) been fifteen times what they are today without the linear match for temperature increases (in orther words the C02 increased, but temperatures did not follow at the same rate. Temperature increase in a given GHG is logarithmic; it falls off at increasing concentrations. The same is true for water vapour).
The fourth article still indicates that water vapour is the most significant contributor to the greenhouse effect.
The cooling trend from the late 1930's to the late 1970's is still interesting as it is a trend of longer duration than the current warming trend of some twenty-six years. All this takes place during an era of considerable C02 output. Since current warming trend is a research program that is comparative (warming as compared to what), one has no choice but to examine historic trends of variability and raise questions as to why they happened in the recent to distant past without human contribution.
The fact of the matter is that certainties concerning the short or long-term effect of these emissions are not easy to come by due to a whole set of complex variables. The "conclusions" that are so often stated (on either end of the spectrum) are, so far, not the final statements on what is happening (or not happening).
The second article is interesting as the author forgot to mention volcanic activity as a natural source of C02. It is also worth noting that C02 content in the atmosphere has been variable over time - that is before human contributions. In some cases, C02 concentrations have (in the past) been fifteen times what they are today without the linear match for temperature increases (in orther words the C02 increased, but temperatures did not follow at the same rate. Temperature increase in a given GHG is logarithmic; it falls off at increasing concentrations. The same is true for water vapour).
The fourth article still indicates that water vapour is the most significant contributor to the greenhouse effect.
The cooling trend from the late 1930's to the late 1970's is still interesting as it is a trend of longer duration than the current warming trend of some twenty-six years. All this takes place during an era of considerable C02 output. Since current warming trend is a research program that is comparative (warming as compared to what), one has no choice but to examine historic trends of variability and raise questions as to why they happened in the recent to distant past without human contribution.
B
bizorky
Guest
Getting back to the original topic, here is an an interesting article about news coverage, global warming and hurricanes.
www.csicop.org/scienceand...urricanes/
www.csicop.org/scienceand...urricanes/
J
JoeyCuppa
Guest
The 2006 Hurricane Season is now above average (using the same link BillonLogan used to start this thread.
We've had 8 named storms (none too devastating, thankfully), compared to the 1944-1996 average of 6 by this point in the season.
We've had 8 named storms (none too devastating, thankfully), compared to the 1944-1996 average of 6 by this point in the season.
B
bizorky
Guest
The record was set in 1933, when there were 21 Hurricanes counted. From about this time and earlier, only storms that hit land were counted as no one was going out to look for them at sea. There was no weather radar, satellites and no aircraft capable of flying above them at this time. The purported "average" is really a recent thing, as some climatoligists think there are 50 to 70 year cycles for such storms.
Hurricanes are, of course, not a new phenomena. The word has its origins in Mayan folklore and the god Hurukan, who unleashed deluges which destroyed people in floods and rains. Hurican was also the the god of evil in Carib culture.
Hurricanes are noteworthy for increased destruction due largely to shifts in human habitation. Simply put, more people are living in the paths of hurricanes. Hurricanes also have a very positive environmental impact that should not be underestimated in that they provide a tremendous source of moisture to many dry inland areas of Central and North America.
Hurricanes are, of course, not a new phenomena. The word has its origins in Mayan folklore and the god Hurukan, who unleashed deluges which destroyed people in floods and rains. Hurican was also the the god of evil in Carib culture.
Hurricanes are noteworthy for increased destruction due largely to shifts in human habitation. Simply put, more people are living in the paths of hurricanes. Hurricanes also have a very positive environmental impact that should not be underestimated in that they provide a tremendous source of moisture to many dry inland areas of Central and North America.