Originally Posted by Smallax

Ok. The simplistic diagrams show sunlight coming in and striking the surface of planet earth and some of it bouncing off.
The diagram then proceeds to show the reflected light striking the outer limits of the atmosphere and bouncing back to earth.
That is the concept of trapping extra light and heat because CO2 is now out near the outer limits of the atmosphere acting as a blanket and/or mirror.

My question is: If CO2 is heavier than the rest of the atmoshere , then does CO2 really maintain that height?

For exa. Does the CO2 from a Jet @ 33,000 feet stay up there? or Would it eventually make its way back to the surface?

The air is thin up on top of the Himilayan mountains. What is the holding capacity of CO2 in that atmosphere?

I would like to see scietific data gathered organised and discussed b4 we make lots of these assumptions. Is that too much to ask?
Are we interestted in science or a political agenda?

Sensible, verifiable data is all it takes to prove me wrong.

The problem here seems to be that you've not taken the time to study the basics. I suggest you take a look at some of the sources i've already provided, especially on the carbon cycle.

Originally Posted by Art Pigou

The problem here seems to be that you've not taken the time to study the basics. I suggest you take a look at some of the sources i've already provided, especially on the carbon cycle.

I have studied the "evidence" for acid rain and global warming since its inception. Unfortunately there has ben no real sience involved in explaining how CO2 reaches the hieghts of the atmosphere in great enough volume to indicate that CO2 can generate a greenhouse effet let alone - "The polar Ice Caps will be gone by January 2013.

Your premise of this BS is being challenged. Blind faith in the 'experts' does not provide worthwhile reading material.

I understand the carbon cycle and nothing about it indicates that it has gone rampant in keeping the atmosphere hotter than normal. That is not what the carbon cycle does.

Carbon dioxide can get into the upper atmosphere simply by virtue of convection. Remember that while CO2 is pretty heavy, the effect of gravity is fairly small compared to the energies of particles. The atmosphere is extremely energetic. This isn't like putting sand in a bowl of water and leaving it to settle, it's constantly being stirred, and as with sand in a bowl you'll get a fairly mixed distribution even though the sand is heavier than water. Heck, if you've ever seen a sand storm you know this can happen in air as well.

I have studied the "evidence" for acid rain and global warming since its inception. Unfortunately there has ben no real sience involved in explaining how CO2 reaches the hieghts of the atmosphere in great enough volume to indicate that CO2 can generate a greenhouse effet let alone

Two responses here. One is that CO2 will rise to high atmosphere by several methods - most notably as a result of CO2 being part fo a boltzman distribution. As mentioned above, large-scale convection currents will also play their part - such as the Hadley and polar cells.
This response also deals with your implied issued with CFCs and the Ozone layer.

The second response is to quote your question back at you with some bold:
"The simplistic diagrams show sunlight coming in and striking the surface of planet earth and some of it bouncing off. The diagram then proceeds to show the reflected light striking the outer limits of the atmosphere and bouncing back to earth.".
Why should CO2 need to be at such a height in order to absorb/reflect heat energy? The answer: it doesn't. Simplistic diagrams show the CO2 'up high', because that's where we all associate the atmosphere to be and so that the illustrators have room to draw their ray diagrams - but CO2 does not need to be up there in order to trap heat.

This CO2 distribution discussion needs to be applied in relation to the 'increase' of CO2 above the baseline of 3%. The amounts of CO2 in the upper atmosphere have not been independantly measured, that I am aware of, and CO2 close to the ground, i.e. smog, along with asphalt and buildings - create heat islands. We should all be in agreement that New York city is definately a warmer place than it was 50 years ago and I am willing to bet that that the CO2 levels are higher in most of the East coast than it was 50 years ago.

However, the cycle is not overwhelmed. There is no evidence of it being overwhelmed. The CO2 is recycled into the oceans to grow algae. Recycled in to trees that grow more rapidly. Test the levels above the oceans and prove that it is higher there as well. That's the point.

I understand the idea of convection currents and that heavier elements will stay aloft in a breeze for a length of time. But to say that your measurements in Hawaii atop a volcano is going to be the same concentration as the jet stream over the Pacific just doesn't make sense.

Personally I am more concerned about the deteriorating Magnet Field and the subsequant weakening of the Ionosphere's abilty to protect us from the sun. If all the money and energy that went into Global Warming - went into finding practical ways to protect us from the increasing harmful rays, we would be better off.

Originally Posted by Smallax

This CO2 distribution discussion needs to be applied in relation to the 'increase' of CO2 above the baseline of 3%. The amounts of CO2 in the upper atmosphere have not been independantly measured, that I am aware of, and CO2 close to the ground, i.e. smog, along with asphalt and buildings - create heat islands. We should all be in agreement that New York city is definately a warmer place than it was 50 years ago and I am willing to bet that that the CO2 levels are higher in most of the East coast than it was 50 years ago.

However, the cycle is not overwhelmed. There is no evidence of it being overwhelmed. The CO2 is recycled into the oceans to grow algae. Recycled in to trees that grow more rapidly. Test the levels above the oceans and prove that it is higher there as well. That's the point.

Agreed on all counts. Either way regarding the details of Co2 in the atmosphere, it is carried around the upper atmosphere by way of the jet stream and is dissipated and dispersed around the globe. And let's face it, all we have to do is watch todays weather to see that the asphalt jungles we have built aren't large enough to stop the cold from coming. If Mand made Global Warming was real, rather than see natural weather cycles as we do, we would see Arctic melt offs taking place in the winters and New York being warm when other rural areas are cold.

I understand the idea of convection currents and that heavier elements will stay aloft in a breeze for a length of time. But to say that your measurements in Hawaii atop a volcano is going to be the same concentration as the jet stream over the Pacific just doesn't make sense.

You have effectively shown that there are Co2 hot spots around the globe. Third world industrial complexes which don't use pollution controls as we do are obvious high emission contributors. California constantly complains that pollutants from China turns their snow black in the northern part of the State. But that in itself is evidence that it eventually settles and is absorbed by the Earth as one more way of the Earth cleaning itself.

Personally I am more concerned about the deteriorating Magnet Field and the subsequant weakening of the Ionosphere's abilty to protect us from the sun. If all the money and energy that went into Global Warming - went into finding practical ways to protect us from the increasing harmful rays, we would be better off.

Have you ever heard of the Haarp project in Alaska? Read this for a shock and an eye opener about what has been going on with the ionosphere for decades now. HAARP.net - The Military's Pandora's Box by Dr. Nick Begich and Jeane Manning

Originally Posted by Smallax

If CO2 *in the atmosphere* really is the problem - Then increasing the 'sea water' To contain - a thousand times as much - of that Co2 would be a good thing.

Think about it. What does it mean when one medium can contain a thousand times more of a problem element?

How many cubic litres of sea water would it take to contain the forest fires of this past season? Who knows - but the encyclopedia does claim that it will do a thousand times better than a breeze over Southern California trees.

You forced me to think...

For the "sea water" to increase, polar and glacial ice needs to melt in the first place, which it is...rapidly. Therefore, it must be getting warmer if it is melting at such a rapid rate. While the oceans do help cleanse the environment of CO2, it is clear that we are outpacing their ability to do so with our CO2 emissions. Keep in mind that we have only been involved in heavy industry for about 200 years, and we only began driving and flying about 100 years ago. So yes, more water would probably help...except...

Ice and snow reflect significantly more of the solar energy that reaches it when compared to water and soil/rock left behind after the melting. Hence, we have a self perpetuating problem. The more solar energy not reflected, the more absorbed. The more energy absorbed, the hotter things become. The hotter things become, the more ice and snow will melt, which will create more surface water to absorb more heat, rasing the global temperature, causing the remaining ice to melt faster...etc etc.... It is called a positive feedback loop.

Do a quick search on the word "Albedo" if you need to research this further. This is high school science at best.

I just can't understand how people can deny global warming. Polar and glacial ice is disappearing at an alarming rate. That's not conjecture or complicated scientific jargon supported by books worth of math equations that only 3 people on earth understand, it's a fact. The global temperature is on the rise...another fact. So yes, global warming is taking place...it's the cause that is somewhat in question. CO2 emmisions seem the most obvious reason why we are seeing such a rapid change. It's highly ingnorant to think that we can change the constitution of the atmosphere and not cause an effect.

Originally Posted by snakespit

You forced me to think...

For the "sea water" to increase, polar and glacial ice needs to melt in the first place, which it is...rapidly. Therefore, it must be getting warmer if it is melting at such a rapid rate. While the oceans do help cleanse the environment of CO2, it is clear that we are outpacing their ability to do so with our CO2 emissions. Keep in mind that we have only been involved in heavy industry for about 200 years, and we only began driving and flying about 100 years ago. So yes, more water would probably help...except...

Ice and snow reflect significantly more of the solar energy that reaches it when compared to water and soil/rock left behind after the melting. Hence, we have a self perpetuating problem. The more solar energy not reflected, the more absorbed. The more energy absorbed, the hotter things become. The hotter things become, the more ice and snow will melt, which will create more surface water to absorb more heat, rasing the global temperature, causing the remaining ice to melt faster...etc etc.... It is called a positive feedback loop.

Do a quick search on the word "Albedo" if you need to research this further. This is high school science at best.

I just can't understand how people can deny global warming. Polar and glacial ice is disappearing at an alarming rate. That's not conjecture or complicated scientific jargon supported by books worth of math equations that only 3 people on earth understand, it's a fact. The global temperature is on the rise...another fact. So yes, global warming is taking place...it's the cause that is somewhat in question. CO2 emmisions seem the most obvious reason why we are seeing such a rapid change. It's highly ingnorant to think that we can change the constitution of the atmosphere and not cause an effect.

Another aspect to your positive feedback loop is that there is a heap load of CO2 locked up in the ice caps that are melting, so ice melting means less heat reflected and more CO2 in the atmosphere, which means higher temperatures, which means more ice melting, which means less heat reflected and more CO2 in the atmos . . . etc etc etc.

Originally Posted by Smallax

This CO2 distribution discussion needs to be applied in relation to the 'increase' of CO2 above the baseline of 3%. The amounts of CO2 in the upper atmosphere have not been independantly measured, that I am aware of, and CO2 close to the ground, i.e. smog, along with asphalt and buildings - create heat islands. We should all be in agreement that New York city is definately a warmer place than it was 50 years ago and I am willing to bet that that the CO2 levels are higher in most of the East coast than it was 50 years ago.

However, the cycle is not overwhelmed. There is no evidence of it being overwhelmed. The CO2 is recycled into the oceans to grow algae. Recycled in to trees that grow more rapidly. Test the levels above the oceans and prove that it is higher there as well. That's the point.

I understand the idea of convection currents and that heavier elements will stay aloft in a breeze for a length of time. But to say that your measurements in Hawaii atop a volcano is going to be the same concentration as the jet stream over the Pacific just doesn't make sense.

Personally I am more concerned about the deteriorating Magnet Field and the subsequant weakening of the Ionosphere's abilty to protect us from the sun. If all the money and energy that went into Global Warming - went into finding practical ways to protect us from the increasing harmful rays, we would be better off.

I'm forced to discontinue any discussion with you until you take the time to remedy your ignorance of basic facts. It is just wrong that "CO2 in the upper atmosphere have not been independantly measured." It is just wrong that CO2 concentrations above the oceans have not been measured. Smallax, i've shown you were you can see the data on this, and yet, you continue on as if nothing had been said.

It is also wrong that sinks are sufficent to absorb the quantity of CO2 humans are releasing. Smallax, the data on this is readily available, and is summarized in the IPCC AR4 Group 1 report, chapter 7.3.

It is wrong that the urban heat island effect can account for any significant portion of the observed global mean warming trend. Check the rural station temperature data against the full set (also in the AR4; and also see Peterson 2003 and Parker 2004).

Seriously dude, what's your problem?

Originally Posted by Art Pigou

I'm forced to discontinue any discussion with you until you take the time to remedy your ignorance of basic facts. It is just wrong that "CO2 in the upper atmosphere have not been independantly measured." It is just wrong that CO2 concentrations above the oceans have not been measured. Smallax, i've shown you were you can see the data on this, and yet, you continue on as if nothing had been said.

It is also wrong that sinks are sufficent to absorb the quantity of CO2 humans are releasing. Smallax, the data on this is readily available, and is summarized in the IPCC AR4 Group 1 report, chapter 7.3.

It is wrong that the urban heat island effect can account for any significant portion of the observed global mean warming trend. Check the rural station temperature data against the full set (also in the AR4; and also see Peterson 2003 and Parker 2004).

Seriously dude, what's your problem?

I inputted your reference here so I guess that was what I was supposed to see. Couple of questions.

Why is their estimation of radiative forcing relelvant? It's not a fact any more than next weeks weather forecast.

Why take ice samples that assume to date back to the 1700s , then switch gears and finish off their chart, with various atmospheric measurements?
After all, We know that 250 ft down in the ice of Greenland gives us 1940s. How would those CO2 measurements in the ice, compare to the previous 5000 feet?

They did have measurement of heat in the stratosphere and troposphere - one warmer and one colder, so was glad to see they made that step. However there wasn't any charting of CO2 measurements.

Originally Posted by Archangel

Agreed on all counts. Either way regarding the details of Co2 in the atmosphere, it is carried around the upper atmosphere by way of the jet stream and is dissipated and dispersed around the globe. And let's face it, all we have to do is watch todays weather to see that the asphalt jungles we have built aren't large enough to stop the cold from coming. If Mand made Global Warming was real, rather than see natural weather cycles as we do, we would see Arctic melt offs taking place in the winters and New York being warm when other rural areas are cold.



You have effectively shown that there are Co2 hot spots around the globe. Third world industrial complexes which don't use pollution controls as we do are obvious high emission contributors. California constantly complains that pollutants from China turns their snow black in the northern part of the State. But that in itself is evidence that it eventually settles and is absorbed by the Earth as one more way of the Earth cleaning itself.



Have you ever heard of the Haarp project in Alaska? Read this for a shock and an eye opener about what has been going on with the ionosphere for decades now. HAARP.net - The Military's Pandora's Box by Dr. Nick Begich and Jeane Manning

Heating up the Ionosphere with Tesla technology. No wonder there is an inter-governmental report put out to divert attention to CO2.

I think superheating the Ionosphere may have consequences. We don't hear Algore pounding the drum on researching that. That is why it is so hard to believe articles that defy common sense. Oh well.

Commonsense from four years ago, still denied by a persistent rump of conspiracy theorists.

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science


" ...... The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8)...... "

Originally Posted by snakespit

...For the "sea water" to increase, polar and glacial ice needs to melt in the first place, which it is...rapidly. Therefore, it must be getting warmer if it is melting at such a rapid rate.

... CO2 emmisions seem the most obvious reason why we are seeing such a rapid change. It's highly ingnorant to think that we can change the constitution of the atmosphere and not cause an effect.

Has anyone seen the PBS episode, maybe it was NOVA or some such thing, but, it was about the deep sea vents that spew out a constant stream of super hot water?

The last one I saw was significant in that this fellow designed a special craft to go under the Arctic glacier, down into the depths and record the temperature of the vent and perhaps - take a sample as well. Tricky operation. Would be fun to watch it again.

Previously, when filming this subject matter, they were sampling these hot water vents to discover the type of lifeforms there might be in such a dark and hostile environment. Different locations however, as these vents are everywhere and are a worthy study of its own.

If one was to think about it - one might begin to wonder if all these hot water spouts spewing into the oceans all over the globe - might have an effect on the planet's water volume and temperature.

So there really is a posibility that CO2 emmissions are not the most obvious reason. I can put an icecube tray full of ice in a sauce pan, put it on the stove and crank up the furnace to 85 degrees. Let it sit out all night long and still have ice in the morning.

If I lit the stove, with just a low flame under that sauce pan of ice, it would be melted and evaporated by morning. To me hot water under a glacier trumps radiative forcing.

Originally Posted by Penfold

Commonsense from four years ago, still denied by a persistent rump of conspiracy theorists.

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science


" ...... The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8)...... "

Who is the fellow that heads the hurricane watch. The guys that predict what hurricanes are going to do with as much accuracy as they can muster.

Very important job because a good prediction saves lives and a bad prediction wastes resources and encourages looting. I forget the name of the fellow that heads this dept., perhaps someone will help me out.

Anyways he does not believe global warming to be a valid theory and inspite of him being the leading meteorlogical authority in the world; he was systematically bashed. Bashed by Algore and his gov't grant money.

Was there a sensible dialogue or debate first? haha Dream on...

This was a while ago now. Did he get fired?