Overdoze...
Wow! You have been doing your homework, overdoze, but have not made the grade. Your answers are too extense to answer in one session (it would be too boring for other members of the board). So I’ll try to shed some light on the subject.
Overdoze: Excuse me??? How the heck is warmer temperature supposed to increase CO2?? Warmer oceans absorb more CO2. Warmer climates encourage greater vegetation which sequesters CO2 from the atmosphere. Biomass <b>scrubs</b> carbon from the atmosphere. Burning previously scrubbed carbon in the form of coal, oil, natural gas or biomass releases it back into the atmosphere as CO2. Did you flunk biology, Mr. teacher?
No, Mr. Teacher didn’t flunk biology. But it seems <b>you ignore</b> the fundamentals of the physics that govern the subject, so I don’t know if you’ll fully understand the following explanation:
1) Warmer temperatures increase CO2 production as your beloved “biomass” (all green stuff on Earth) have a <b>negative</b> oxygen balance, that is, the green cover produces more CO2 than it absorbs. Don’t you believe it? Ask Bert Bolin, head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the people pushing for the Kyoto Treaty). He made the discovery back in the 80s, when trying to figure out where all the CO2 in the air was going, as calculations could not explain an excess in CO2 that should have been sequestered by forests, jungles and all plants. Forest <b>do contribute to global warming</b>, like it or not.
2) Warmer oceans <b>DO NOT</b> absorb more CO2. On the contrary, cold oceans absorbs more CO2 than warmer ones. Firstly, the infrared (I.R.) absorption band of CO2 lie in the 12-16 micron wavelength band. The wavelength of strongest I.R. emission from polar ice lies in or near this band. This means that <b>CO2 has its greatest absorption of I.R. radiation at near sub-zero temperatures</b>. At warmer temperatures, the typical wavelength of strongest I.R. transmission is less than 12 microns, and therefore much less affected by CO2. At temperatures around 15°C (the average surface temperature of the Earth), the strongest emission wavelength is around 10 microns, a wavelength which is largely unaffected by greenhouse gases, the so-called “radiation window” of the atmosphere where I.R. radiation from the surface can escape freely to space.
3) The most powerful greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is <b>water vapor</b> representing over 90% of the natural greenhouse effect. Water vapor shares many overlapping absorption bands with CO2 and therefore an increase or decrease in CO2 has little effect on the overall rate of IR absorption in those overlapping regions. However, in the Arctic and Antarctic regions, the air is very dry due to the extreme cold, allowing CO2 to exert a much greater leverage in the dry atmosphere than would possible in warmer moister climates at lower latitudes.
However, the correlation is still there and is very strong.
Come on, overdoze, if you know about science you know <b>correlation</b> does not equals <b>causality</B>. All people that <b>eat</b< tomatoes <b>will die</b>, so there is a <b>strong correlation</b> between eating tomatoes and dying –but there is <b>no causality</b> there: eating tomatoes will not kill you (even if they are GM tomatoes). Please try to stay at a scientific level in a scientific discussion.
Are you aware that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? That's not propaganda; it's mere physics. CO2 efficiently absorbs infra-red (heat) emissions from the ground, thereby making it more difficult for heat to escape into space.
The answer was given above, in point (3)
By your standard, Sciforums is a far more reputable source of information than either of the above. So you better trust what I say, granpa.
Sciforums is not a science database or a source of scientific data (as for your posts, at least).
Also FYI, Cornell University is a globally recognized and highly acclaimed academic institution.
The mentioned “Cornell University” website is not <b>officially supported</b> by Cornell University, but by a program by some students and professor there –a personal website. It is in the same spirit of the page by a Stanford University professor, .John McCarthy</A>, that supports a totally opposed view from their fellow buddies at Cornell.
And in case you're imagining that "the industry and oil lobbies" pay greens, you're in need of medical attention.
Read the news? What about Enron?. It supported the Kyoto Treaty. What about Atlantic Richfield Corp? What about DuPont? What about Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI)? I can mention a long list of industries and oil companies that finance the greens. And many (hundreds) Foundations too. Just ask me.
More local temperature swings. You must not comprehend the notions of "global", "average", and "trend"… Newkirk, Oklahoma = global. Ok, point conceded. You got me there.
Global means “everywhere”, as a result of the sum of temperatures all over the world. Looking at temperatures taken by satellites and radio sondes all over the world you’ll see that the <b>present trend</b> seems to be <b>towards cooling</b>, not warming. Take a look for yourself:
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm
These people are rich to begin with. Show me how they actually profit from the green movement.
They were rich, and they are getting richer every day. Platinum mining was not faring too well before they launched the Clean Air Act scare, forcing all cars in the world to use platinum mesh for the catalytic converters. Rio Tinto Zinc (RTZ) Corp. belongs to the British Crown, and is run by Prince Charles and his brother Prince Andrew.
2) his cousin and former president of the WWF, Prince Bernhard von Lippe of the Netherlands (BTW, former member of the NSDAP (Nazi Party) with affiliation card #2583009, date: May, 1st, 1933, former SS member, worked in IG Farbenindustrie --makers of the Zyklon-B gas--), was caught receiving a $1.1 million bribe from Lockheed Corp. in 1976.
------------------------------------------
Either you're implying that Zyklon-B is connected to the green movement, or you're implying that Lockheed Corp. wants to curb CO2 emissions. You must be out of your mind.
It goes backwards: the green movement have its roots in the philosophy that made possible the Zyklon-B gas madness. Lockheed Corp. just bribed Prince Bernhard –a Great Green- for selling F-104 jet fighters to the Dutch Air Force. That shoes you the moral integrity of a Great Green, an integrity shared by most Green Leaders.
Oh yes, those "scientists" are really getting fat off that government money.
Sure. On the other hand, Dr. Joseph Scotto, from the American Cancer Society got his grants revoked because he dared to publish a study in Science (1985) showing that UV radiation in the US had decreased by 7% between 1975-1984 –contrary to all prophecies that UV radiation would increase due to the Ozone layer destruction.(J. Scotto et al., <I>“Biologically Effective Ultraviolet Radiation: Surface Measurements in the United States, 1974-1985”</I>, <b>Science</b>, Feb. 12, 1988). Read and weep…
If we did not curb CFC emissions, the "gigantic farse" would be beaming ultraviolet all over the planet even as we speak. The holes over the arctic and antarctic are just now beginning to stabilize and shrink. Maybe you like sunburns and skin cancers. I, personally, prefer to have them not.
Scotto proved UV radiation was decreasing. Measurements of ozone all over the world have failed to show a decrease in global ozone. Again, learn and weep…
Proofs?? Undeniable evidences?? Where are they? Physics says CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You have proof against that? Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been dramatically boosted in the last couple of centuries and continue to increase exponentially! You have proof against that? Man is unbalancing the natural carbon budget by releasing previously sequestered carbon into the atmosphere in massive amounts growing exponentially. You have proof against that? CO2 persists in the atmosphere for a long time. You have proof against that? Venus is 900 degrees Fahrenheit at the surface due to a runaway greenhouse effect. You have proof against that? How about "undeniable evidences"?
Where are the proofs? If you keep reading the misinformation provided by the Green Network you will never have the chance to learn the scientific facts. You must separate politics from science. They can never walk the same path.
The planet may be getting greener for now, but how much greener will it get before the flora is saturated? Before annual fires begin to release as much CO2 back into the atmosphere as is sequestered by additional greenery every year?
What would happen if the air was filled with 2,600 to 6,000 parts per million of CO2? How much would the temperature rise? Can you give an estimate? Scientists have the answer: they determined that during the Creataceus period (about 60-90 million years ago) COO2 concentrations went down from 6,000 ppm to 2,600 ppm. During that period temperatures <b>were just 1,5°C higher than today</b>. Draw your own conclusions.
There is good reason to suspect that increasing concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases could unbalance the climate. Unless and until we have a compelling reason to strongly believe otherwise, caution is the only prudent option.
As 6.000 ppm of CO2 did not unbalance the climate in the Cretaceus, there is <b>no compelling reason</b> to believe that an increase from 370 ppm to 700 ppm will unbalance the climate at all. So caution has no reasonable place here.
Michaels is more than just a scientist. He has a clear libertarian (anti-regulation, anti-establishment, pro-freemarket) agenda. As are pretty much all of the scientists you've mentioned in addition to him.
For your information, I am not libertarian at all, and I am quite anti-freemarket, as free-market has shown to play havoc on the economies of all developing (or underdeveloping?) countries. Do you remember that the Club of Rome’s president, Dr. Alexander King wrote a book called <b>“Limits to Growth”</b>? From there was born the theory of the “controlled destruction of the economies of the developing countries” being carried since 1974 by the heads of the US Federal Reserve Bank.
Yet without federal regulations we still wouldn't have catalytic converters on our cars. If you think that's a good thing, take a trip to Moskow and take a deep breath. We'd still be driving on leaded gazoline.
Catalytic converters have nothing to do with leaded fuels, as they do nothing to eliminate lead. If you want to know the truth about leaded gasoline and catalytic converters (and why they do not convert anything into nothing) read:
http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Chap4-LEAD.html<b>Leaded Gasoline</B></A>, where you will find down the page a short essay by me called <b>“Catalytic Converters”</b>.
We've spent billions subsidizing coal mines and gas/oil pipelines, cleaning up their leaks and disasters, fighting in the Middle East for domination and making an enemy of the Arab world, and I'm sure you could go on with respect to the Americas, Africa, Asia and the various islands. Is that free market, or is it a load of bullshit?
Sure its all on the free market philosophy, something I am strongly against. But, what has this do do with global warming and other scientific frauds?
Here are some interesting reading, regarding the warming issue, retreating(?) glaciers, and lots more:
<A HREF=”
http://msnbc.com/local/pencilnews/393218.asp”><b>Alaska’s Hubbard Glacier advances rapidly, turning Russell Fiord into Russell Lake</B></A> - By Jon E. Miller, special to PencilNews - <b>YAKUTAT</B>, Alaska, July 15- “The advancing Hubbard Glacier in Alaska has nearly cut off Russell Fiord from salt water, endangering the small fishing village of Yakutat as well as local wildlife.”
-------------------------------
<A HREF="http://www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm"><B>The Top of the World: Is the North Pole Turning to Water?</B></A> - (2 Feb 2001) Water at the North Pole was big news in August 2000. Was it just another media scare story, or is the Arctic sea ice really disappearing? This report details the whole issue of Arctic sea ice. –
Also: See this BBC report on Arctic Sea Ice -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1311007.stm
<A HREF="http://www.john-daly/hockey/hockey.htm"><B>“The `Hockey Stick”</b></A>:- A New Low in Climate Science (12 Nov 2000) The new dogma by both the IPCC and US National Assessment is that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age during the last millennium never happened. Their claim is politically inspired.
Enough for tonight.