Ok im confused about "facts" regarding global warming

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


So your only evidence is "because they say so." Well, unlike you, I simply don't trust "them."

[ QUOTE ]
What specific data are you looking for?

[/ QUOTE ]

Any evidence linking CO2 as a cause for increased temperatures.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused, you're saying you don't accept the conclusions of experts in their fields whose results were published in peer-reviewed journals? If this is the case then you should probably stay clear of any sort of scientific discussion, as you must have a poor understanding of how it works.

The evidence is, as mentioned, as established as anything in the scientific community is. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, which makes it (along with several other gases) what is called a "greenhouse gas". Sunlight is mostly high frequency radiation, and passes through the atmosphere because it does not absorb in that region. Various earthbound objects do absorb in that region, elevating the energy level of the molecules in those objects (and increasing their temperature). Radiative heat transfer occurs, where these excited molecules can lose heat by emitting radiation in the infrared region. This radiation passes back through the atmosphere, where it is absorbed by CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Other atmospheric gases, such as nitrogen (about 70% of the atmosphere), do not absorb infrared. Thus the larger the concentration of infrared absorbers in the atmosphere, the more energy is held within the atmosphere instead of leaking back out into space.

This is, as I mentioned, trivially easy to show in a lab by measuring the absorption/emission spectrum of the various atmospheric gases, so since you apparently refuse to take the word of those who are experts in the field, you can perform the experiment yourself. It is also standard curriculum in most 4th grade classrooms.

[/ QUOTE ]

A beautiful theory. Too bad the evidence of the earth doesn't seem to support it. Such a shame, because on paper it just seems so simple and logical and it can be shown in a lab. Go figure.

[Benjamin]

[ QUOTE ]
This is, as I mentioned, trivially easy to show in a lab by measuring the absorption/emission spectrum of the various atmospheric gases, so since you apparently refuse to take the word of those who are experts in the field, you can perform the experiment yourself. It is also standard curriculum in most 4th grade classrooms.

[/ QUOTE ]

First demonstrated by John Tyndall in 1859! Google it, Alex.

[inlemur]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


So your only evidence is "because they say so." Well, unlike you, I simply don't trust "them."

[ QUOTE ]
What specific data are you looking for?

[/ QUOTE ]

Any evidence linking CO2 as a cause for increased temperatures.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused, you're saying you don't accept the conclusions of experts in their fields whose results were published in peer-reviewed journals? If this is the case then you should probably stay clear of any sort of scientific discussion, as you must have a poor understanding of how it works.

The evidence is, as mentioned, as established as anything in the scientific community is. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, which makes it (along with several other gases) what is called a "greenhouse gas". Sunlight is mostly high frequency radiation, and passes through the atmosphere because it does not absorb in that region. Various earthbound objects do absorb in that region, elevating the energy level of the molecules in those objects (and increasing their temperature). Radiative heat transfer occurs, where these excited molecules can lose heat by emitting radiation in the infrared region. This radiation passes back through the atmosphere, where it is absorbed by CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Other atmospheric gases, such as nitrogen (about 70% of the atmosphere), do not absorb infrared. Thus the larger the concentration of infrared absorbers in the atmosphere, the more energy is held within the atmosphere instead of leaking back out into space.

This is, as I mentioned, trivially easy to show in a lab by measuring the absorption/emission spectrum of the various atmospheric gases, so since you apparently refuse to take the word of those who are experts in the field, you can perform the experiment yourself. It is also standard curriculum in most 4th grade classrooms.

[/ QUOTE ]

A beautiful theory. Too bad the evidence of the earth doesn't seem to support it. Such a shame, because on paper it just seems so simple and logical and it can be shown in a lab. Go figure.

[/ QUOTE ]

What evidence exactly doesn't support it? Maybe you are looking at temperature-CO2 data from earth's history and concluding from some discrepancy that they either have nothing to do with each other or that CO2 in a lab behaves differently from CO2 in the atmosphere. If you are doing the former then you are underappreciating the complexity of the system and if you are doing the latter then you are an idiot.

See my first post in this thread. The climate is governed by unfathomably complicated coupled partial differential equations. One (out of who knows how many) component of these equations is greenhouse gases, which have been thoroughly characterized for over a century. CO2 does absorb in the infrared spectrum, there is no getting around it. Concluding from that fact that an arbitrary increase in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration must be accompanied by some increase in the average atmospheric temperature would of course be a fallacy due to the complicated nature of the system. However, we know that it does contribute, and we know which way it contributes, so writing it off as not related would be a much more serious error.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
Concluding from that fact that an arbitrary increase in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration must be accompanied by some increase in the average atmospheric temperature would of course be a fallacy due to the complicated nature of the system.

[/ QUOTE ]That is my only real point. We are in agreement.

[ QUOTE ]
However, we know that it does contribute, and we know which way it contributes, so writing it off as not related would be a much more serious error.

[/ QUOTE ]Seems pretty logical and I would be strongly inclined to agree that it contributes, although I don't know enough about the subject to say that I believe anything definitive. My questions would be more around the scalar.

[TheFaucet]

The Great Global Swindle is the most misinformed and manipulative polemic documentary that I have had the displeasure of watching and the producers should be shot for creating such rubbish.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
So Al Gore has his CO2 and temperature graph and uses it to show that increased CO2 has historically raised temperatures.

Then the Great Global Warming Swindle uses the "same data"(?) to show that increasing temperatures actually raises CO2, not the other way around.

Who is right and how do you know ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Both are right. CO2 increases global temperature. Increasing temperature raises CO2 levels. It is a positive feedback loop. This is not a good thing.

Also, human activity has been increasing CO2 since long before the industrial revolution, due to deforestation for agriculture and firewood. Also rice agriculture generates methane, which is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. The industrial revolution accelerated the process. The climate is getting warmer quite rapidly, with potentially disastrous consequences for humanity. Regardless of the cause (although IMO, there is little doubt that burning fossil fuels is a major, if not the primary component of it), reducing CO2 emissions will slow or possibly stop the process.