Lets take a look at the facts, all this climategate stuff aside.
Sounds like it should be an interesting endeavor.
Since 1900, we have been spewing out more and more CO2, correct?
It would seem so.
Now, I fully agree, the amount of CO2 we've thrown out cannot substantially warm the Earth, but it can cause a very small amount of warming, globally.
How does it do this? Who says it does this? How do they know this? What proof do they have of this?
I personally don’t fully understand how this works (or perhaps at all).
We've also had our ozone layer depleted in certain areas, adding to the amount of energy that reaches the surface of the Earth.
The [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone"]ozone[/ame] layer protects us from UV rays. Decreases in the layer in some areas would, indeed, seem to then cause increased amounts of UV rays. It would seem also to logically follow that an increase in UV rays, as they are a form of energy, would cause some increase in heat levels of the earth, at least to a small extent.
But ozone is also a greenhouse gas. It would then seem to follow that depletion would result in lower temperatures.
On an odd side note, all the Wiki articles I read on this bit seem to at some point link to IPCC reports or some such. IF, and I stress IF, there is some doubt as to the validity of the IPCC reports, then… Ah well.
As I've said before, the most dangerous greenhouse gas is water vapor.
I would prefer “most effective”. “Dangerous” implies danger, bad, ect. And the greenhouse effect of greenhouse gases is not a bad thing.
The amounts that naturally occur through evaporation allow enough heat to remain in the biosphere so life can be sustained.
Precisely, water vapor and the other greenhouse gases are supposed to be there. The amounts, or more precisely the increase/decrease in said amounts, is the issue.
But, when we increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, as we obviously have, you increase the rate of evaporation very slightly.
Assuming, of course, that CO2 has the effect you describe.
This in turn releases a tiny bit more water vapor then is the norm for our environment. Because of this, temperatures rise, because more energy is being trapped inside the biosphere. This in turn causes another small increase in evaporation, which forces another increase in temperature.
I ask for some links to prove this, as I haven’t found anything regarding it, and it sounds interesting.
This is what's known as a positive feedback loop. It’s like a human who can't sweat when exercising. Your body keeps heating up, and heating up, and it can't get rid of the heat fast enough. The checks and balances of the environment cannot stop this process.
I understand the positive feedback loop idea. What you haven’t yet proven is if it actually happens in the system (in this case, the atmosphere/climate) you are discussing.
What ends up happening, is over very long periods of time, temperature increases slowly, but surely. Given the length of time this takes, you could take any 40 year temperature interval, and you wouldn't find the slightest hint of temperature change. Regardless of what the data is saying, this is happening, because, quite frankly, the logic is too sound to be wrong.
But how do you KNOW the logic is so sound it cannot possibly be wrong?
What you are basically saying is, “it is this way because it is this way”.
What if it isn’t?
Hell, I hold the belief that anything is possible…Although not probable.
Always question.
Always wonder.
These changes won't happen fast enough for them to kill off humans, or to do anything major to effect our way of live. What will happen, however, is other animals won't be able to adapt, because natural selection cannot work at the same pace as the climate change.
How do you know this? What proof do you have?
This is another case of your stating “X will happen because of Y”, but without proving Y.
This is another problem many people don't understand. A short time for Earth means thousands and thousands of years. In relation to the time Earth has been around (4.6 billion years) humans have been around for maybe 10,000 years. So, for us, the climate change is going to take a very long time. But we have technology; we have adapted the Earth to fit our needs. Other animals, such as bears, and fish, can't change fast enough to match the pace of global warming.
Your assumptions are as follows:
- That AGW/ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) is happening, and will result in a change major enough to cause the effect you state.
- That animals cannot adapt at the pace you assume the change will occur.
- That the change will be permanent.
Assuming those things, your statement is logically sound.
Do you understand now? It is undoubtedly happening, but not very fast, and probably not fast enough to affect us for a long time to come. The recent snow storm on the East Coast proves this process is taking place, even as we discuss it.
I understand your argument, partially.
I don’t necessarily agree that “it is undoubtedly happening”. Nothing that exists (or doesn’t, as the case may be) is incapable of being doubted.
I assume by referring to the recent snow storm you refer to the
El Niño effect and it’s affect on the weather?
I further assume that you are assuming climate change affects El Niño?
I also assume that you are assuming ACC would then further affect El Niño?
Again, assuming your assumptions are correct, then the logic makes sense.
I personally don't know what we can really do about it though. We can try to decrease the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, but that wouldn't do very much, as it has already started the reaction. We can try to decrease the amount of water vapor, and return it to normal levels, but we would have to pour trillions of dollars into that, and keep water vapor at a steady level for decades to stop this. And even then, if we are even slightly off from the original number, the process will continue, or we might start an ice age because we removed too much water vapor.
All those ideas MIGHT help, assuming there is a problem to begin with, and the earth can’t fix itself.
Better, I think, to focus those funds on aggressively pursuing ever higher technology levels.
We may find a solution, or that there wasn’t an issue to begin with. And keeping those scientists in the lab will keep em’ off the roads, producing CO2…:mrgreen:
That's my take on things, but again, I might be wrong, but that would also mean my books are wrong, and their logic, and they seem pretty solid.
But, you see, the recent events that everyone opposed to the AGW/ACC theory are excited about…If those events are as reported (by some), then the “facts” some of those books are based on might be faulty.
I don’t really understand it all myself…but I think I have a basic grasp.