tekochip wrote, "The CO2 cycle requires life to move the CO2 around and humans are contributing much more CO2 than the rest of life on Earth can consume." My question is based on what evidence that humans are contributing more CO2 than the rest of life can cosume? Atmospheric CO2 is only 0.039445% of the total composition. So, how much is too much? The so-called models DO NOT accurately predicate anything. A lot of misinformation has and is being presented as fact.
I bought my son a weather book that shows the earth's temperature over geological time scales and it paints a very interesting picture. There are periods in the past where the earth was much warmer than it is now, and there was no technology, no humans, and definitely no man made carbon emissions. And of course there were times when the earth was much colder.
What are the long cycles of this planet? We just do not know. Sputnik went up just 55 years ago. We do not have enough data over a long enough period of time to determine if the few thousands of a percent of CO2 that man is contributing to the atmosphere is really having an effect.
1000s of scientists today, with advanced degrees in atmospheric science, claim the global warming alarmists are wrong. See the list of 31,000+ scientists with advanced degrees who said basically the same thing (over 3000 with degrees in atmospheric science and over 5000 in Physics and Aerospace science, and 9000 with PhDs). Unfortunately, some of the scientists on this list have been verbally attacked so much that many of them would like to have not signed the petition. This list has also been attacked by claiming these were mostly made up names and titles. But even Wikipedia claims they are real scientists due to the test that was done:
"Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases ..."
The enemies of this petition have even gone through the trouble to send physical letters in the mail as if they were real scientists, so they could get a few names on the list that were not real scientists (so they can discredit all the real signatures). See http://www.petitionproject.org/ or http://www.oism.org/pproject/
What does the evidence say? Even those who are Christians (Bible Christians, not denominational Christians) know what the Bible says in 1 Thess 5:21. It says, "Test all things, hold fast what is good."A Christian must follow the evidence because they have committed themselves to a love of (sacrifice for) the truth (see www.MiraculousBible.org or www.WhyBaptism.org). Right now the evidence for concern over Global Warming is primarily based on assumptions that have been disproved by other scientific facts (ice core data conflicts with erosion rates, etc.).
Yes, water is opaque to IR, but Earth's water cycle is capable of moving water in and out of the atmosphere. The CO2 cycle requires life to move the CO2 around and humans are contributing much more CO2 than the rest of life on Earth can consume.
Good information, Etmax. Too often the argument regarding climate change has to do with emotion rather than science. Unfortunately, many believe science is just another point of view rather than something that can be proved and repeated.
The problem with your 'experiment' is that a bottle is not an accurate model of the earth's atmosphere. You are comparing apples and oranges. It is not as simple as you are making it out to be. The bottle with gas heats because there is more room for the gas molecules to move around, which they do. The heating is caused by the excitation of the gas. Water is a very unique entity and there reallly is not much room for the molecules to move around. You also have to look at the thermal retention properties of gaseous CO2 versus liquid water (again apples and oranges).
And presenting a single case in which higher atmospheric CO2 caused certain plants to have issues, does not make a cause in the general sense. Remove all CO2 from the atmosphere and see the effects is has on plant life.
In order for a theory to be proven, it MUST be able to pass the "scientific method" which has been used for centuries. It MUST because the scientific method does not allow biased opinion (either scientific or political). Global warming cannot be proven because there is no way to "pass" step 4: Repeatability in a controlled way that can be measured accurately and PROVEN. This is why true scientists do not accept the politically charged debate. Pretty much the same as the debate about Darwinism. Where is the proof of step #4? Where is the "missing link"? Even Darwin doubted his own theory after it was published.
I have not read all the comments, but wanted to add that water vapor, which makes up a lot more of the atmosphere than CO2 is actually a larger driver in what the global warming alarmists believe in. I took an IR course a while back while working for a major defense contractor and what we learned in this course is that both CO2 and water vapor are IR opaque. So they keep IR out as much as they keep it in. Indeed, if CO2 levels are rising one might expect to see a cooling effect as solar IR would be blocked by the atmosphere. So I guess the next move will be to regulate water vapor in the atmosphere.
In addition, this so-called carbon sequestering sounds a lot like fracking, that the global warming alarmists are dead set against. What is the difference between injecting high pressure CO2 into the ground or injecting the fracting solution? If fracking is bad, then carbon sequestering cannot be all that good either. You can't have it both ways.
Finally, I always thought that skepticism was good for science. Isn't healthy skepticism, a questioning of the established norms, what pushes science and knowledge forward?
If you place two clear drink bottles side by side, one containing air and one containing CO2 there is a temperature difference of a few degrees that can be measured if a thermocouple is placed inside. This is a simple experiment anyone can do that proves CO2 retains heat more than air.
Also since the 80's there have been incidences in Africa where some food crops have become toxic. The reasoning was that as CO2 levels rise plant grow with less effort and put the energy saved towards producing cyanide containing chemicals. This has since then been shown to be the case with crops grown in green houses where elevated CO2 levels were created. It's not all food crops, but Casava and I think from memory Tapioca was the other one were affected. A large number of people survive on these 2 foods.
It is interesting that even among engineers and scientist there are some topics that we seem incapable of approaching with objectivity. Even defining the problem seems to tangle people up in some dark maze of religious and cultural preconceptions that is far away from how we normally would approach a practical problem of technology. The depth of the bias on both sides is revealed in these comments by how much of the discussion focuses on whether the potential for a globe changing environmental process is man made or a product of natural consequences.
What is it about humans facing a possible existential challenge that apparently requires us to respond by first arguing over who should be blamed. If it happens will it be our fault, the fault of a blind evolutionary process or some arbitray act of God?
If we could trancend these irrelevant distractions the answers to whether or not climate change threatens our existence could be discovered through the application of the same tools that are presently allowing a dedicated group of humans to drive a very sophisticated golf cart around the surface of Mars.
At this year's MD&M West show, lots of material suppliers are talking about new formulations for wearables and things that stick to the skin, whether it's adhesives, wound dressings, skin patches and other drug delivery devices, or medical electronics.
The US Congress has extended an important tax credit for solar energy, a move that’s good news for future investments in this type of alternative energy and for many stakeholders in the solar industry.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.