Global warming debunked

Please use facts.

It is true that by comparison of quantity there is a hell of a lot more water vapour in the atmosphere than Co2. Water vapour is a perfect absorber of infrared radiation and thus the main contributor to the so called 'greenhouse' effect. So far Augie is right. And he is also right, that the Earth would be covered in ice, if it was not for the warming blanket of that water vapour. However Augie omits to say this: Water vapour is not absorbing (shielding against radiation heat loss) in the entire infrared spectrum. In fact there are, thankfully, a few relatively clear 'open windows' in the absorption spectrum of water vapour because of the physical properties of the water molecule. If it was not for these 'windows' in the absorption spectrum of water vapour, our earth would find it very difficult indeed to radiate heat away at all. And radiating in the infrared spectrum, a bit like the glow from your hot potbelly stove in winter, is the only way that Earth can loose thermal energy to space! If these remaining open windows in the infrared spectrum between the various bands in which water vapour absorbs were not there, then Earth would be a boiling quagmire, and not very conducive to the current forms of life. Water is so abundant in the atmosphere that in those areas where it absorbs heat radiation, the atmosphere is practically impermeable or 'black'. In other words in these areas the absorption spectrum is completely saturated. And no matter how much more water vapour there would be, it can't get 'blacker than black'. It?s a bit like putting a black tarp over your window at home. After the first one it dose not matter how many more you add, it won't get any darker - at least through that window! But here is the catch: Co2 and also Methane have absorption areas of infrared radiation in some of the few remaining 'windows' in which the earth can 'shine out' so to speak and loose heat, because these windows in the spectrum are not already closed by water vapour's thick blanket. And it does not take much of a Co2 concentration at all, to lead to a strong absorption in these areas. In fact Co2 is so good at absorbing heat radiation in its bands that even at the natural background concentration of 280 parts per billion of Co2, the atmosphere is practically already almost 'black' in the centre of the Co2 absorption band! The anthropogenic additions of Co2 - in fact we will be practically doubling it by the mid of the century - will have a very measurable effect to the ability of Earth to radiate out of this 'window' precisely because the natural Co2 concentration is so low (compared to water) and the absorption is not yet saturated in these frequency bands so that any additional Co2 we bring to release is directly contributing to the darkening around the Co2 window in the absorption spectrum. Thus Augies argument of the low concentration of Co2 relative to Water is actually coming home to roost!


Remember the little dutch boy with his finger in the **** holding back the ocean? It's a fine balance of keeping things warm but not too warm. Plugging up all the holes is not a good thing when it comes to global climate.

Personally, I don't look at the issue more than this single fact... Modern life pollutes and those responsible for that pollution want a free pass. All of us want modern conveniences but we don't want to pay the FULL PRICE for manufacturing and clean up.

TANSTAAFL kids... TANSTAAFL.

Let us get to the point where we don't make garbage and let the question of global warming take care of itself.

but might you be suggesting there is a cold/warm cycle??

Just keep ignoring the facts

... and I have very publicly admitted that I am on the fence about the influence of man on global climate. You, on the other hand have made clear that no matter what evidence is shown here you believe man has no lasting impact.

BUT...

You seem to be overlooking one significant issue here. You are making a case for industry to be allowed to throw pollution out into the environment. I on the other hand am saying that whether industry causes global warming or not... industry should be expected to be working towards implementing the full measure of technological advancements in curbing pollution within the limits of today's technology.

In short... you DM, are in favor of industrial pollution when it makes products cheap and profit margins large. I expect my products to be as environmentally friendly as possible and if I can't afford them I probably didn't need them to begin with.

Ridiculous logic. I am not in favor of corporations polluting. There is one FACT and that is that the world is dynamic, not static. There is an incredible amount of data showing that the Earth's climate is constantly changing (and zero showing that man is causing it). It is absurd to say, suggest or think that right now, man is causing it.

After all, why even be arguing against man's contributions to global warming if you are also in favor of emissions cutbacks?

Or are you saying you are in favor of total pollution control but you just debate the global warming issue for the heck of it?

Or are you saying that man generated CO/CO2 emissions are not pollution? If that is true then what about the sulfur byproducts being pumped into the air that produce acid rain? Is that just an entirely different issue altogether?

From 1940 to 1970 the earths temperature was dropping slightly. In the mid 1970's, the "global alarmists" were screaming "ice age, ice age." Now they rant " the ice is melting, the ice is melting".And in the 70's we had scientists warning of an impending ice age.

Something's not right. Maybe it's still a theory?

Bob

your talking to the experts here

Smithsonian? It's not to be seen again. Some knob you increase the CO2 and pictures showing ice beginning to cover all of North America. I played with it in 2001 but last year on a second trip to DC it was gone. It was from the '70 Ice Age predictions...

It would have been fun (if only I'd known) to video how it worked and youtube'd it.

Bob

in the history channel is the deep freeze

I thought that I had imagined that simulator because no one else I have talked to has ever remembered it. Seems like I first saw it there in 1996.

Does the acronym PUMA ring a bell?

but the PUMA I seem to remember in association with the Smithsonian exhibit was (Portable or Possible or Probable?) something something Atmosphere.

... the main challenge I made... that we quit polluting and let the global warming/global freezing scenario take care of its self.

As Road Runner so flippantly responded about talking to "experts" you might notice that I never claimed to be one. Duck Man asked for facts that refuted Augie's claim... I did a google search and the article I linked to came third in response to my search of the guy's own name. It made as much sense if not more than the original article DM posted because it went into more depth about Augie's own theories... and then pointed out what he neglected to cover.

Aside from the "debunking" of global warming or if DM was a bit more accurate... the debunking of man's role in global warming, I will make this statement...

The simple truth about the whole issue is just that nobody knows for sure what is going on when it comes to global climate. Does anyone who has posted to this thread disagree with this? That no one knows for sure?

Well then, this is what the real issue is in my opinion.

What it really comes down to is simply this. The folks who manufacture goods, transportation, and energy simply say that it is cost efficient to make these things... BUT... it would cost them too much to clean up all the mess they spew out in the course of production and consumption. In the basest terms - they want to make a profit but not pay for clean up their mess.

How is the acceptable? I can understand how in the past we couldn't do a lot since we lacked the technology to clean up much industrial waste and so pollution was unavoidable. Heck, in a lot of cases we didn't even know we were poisoning ourselves and our lands till it was too late. Today though, except for certain radioactive materials, we have reached a point where we can take 96-98 % of all man made waste and recycle it or render it inert.

Let's face it kids... this isn't about environment or politics or even an unwillingness of western populations to do without certain conveniences... this is about global corporations who are unwilling to spend the money to clean up after themselves. It is about PROFIT and PROFIT MARGINS. The corporations want to spend just enough money to make money and nothing more.

Like I said before... forget the smoke and mirrors both sides use in discussing global climate. Let us just talk about efficiency and the expectations that global corporations clean up the mess they make in their hurry to invent products that we have to have.

Talking about stuff we have to have... I have already seen one "official" spring clean up/garbage pick-up in local neighborhoods. I got a practically brand new gas grill out of cruising the streets and my old biker buddy Andy picked out enough "garbage" construction materials to finish the addition on his house including 5 double pane casement windows.

"Doing SOMETHING is better than doing nothing even if what we do damages most of the world" That is not a quote from you directly, but would seem to be a fair summary.

Sorry but you lost me...

To paraphrase you: We should do something even if it damages the world?

Yeah.... sounds like putting out a fire with gasoline to me.

In big cities you don't see that yellow haze anymore, and engines are running cleaner.