• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US federal department is censoring use of term 'climate change', emails reveal

RAMOSS said:
We can, however, using science and the scientific method, understand how much of the global warming is due to man, verses natural cycles. We know how the earth procession effects climate, and we know how green house gases effect the global temperature. We also know how much carbon dioxide we are adding to the atmosphere via human activity .. verses how it would be if we weren't around.
Click to expand...

We also know that 95 percent of all greenhouse gases is water vapor and CO2 is less than 5 percent of all greenhouse gases. If the impending climate change catastrophe is nearly upon us, why do environmentalists/'scientists' choose to restrict the less than 5 percent of all greenhouse gases? Hum?
 
cabse5 said:
We also know that 95 percent of all greenhouse gases is water vapor and CO2 is less than 5 percent of all greenhouse gases. If the impending climate change catastrophe is nearly upon us, why do environmentalists/'scientists' choose to restrict the less than 5 percent of all greenhouse gases? Hum?
Click to expand...

That is by volumn, yes.. but we know that how much CO2 will effect items, and how much CO2 is being pumped into the atmosphere. The fact that water vapor is a green house gas means that the excess CO2 causes a positive feedback loop, amplifying the effect of the CO2.
 
RAMOSS said:
That is by volumn, yes.. but we know that how much CO2 will effect items, and how much CO2 is being pumped into the atmosphere. The fact that water vapor is a green house gas means that the excess CO2 causes a positive feedback loop, amplifying the effect of the CO2.
Click to expand...
As I have stated above we have a general idea of how much CO2 will effect items.
Here is what the IPCC's key concepts in climate science document says,
If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously,with everything else remaining the same,
the outgoing infrared radiation would be reduced by about 4 Wm-2. In other words, the radiative forcing corresponding
to a doubling of the CO2 concentration would be 4 Wm-2. To counteract this imbalance, the temperature of the
surface-troposphere system would have to increase by 1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%),
in the absence of other changes. In reality, due to feedbacks, the response of the climate system is much more complex.
It is believed that the overall effect of the feedbacks amplifies the temperature increase to 1.5 to 4.5°C.
A significant part of this uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge
of clouds and their interactions with radiation.
Click to expand...
Since that was written in 2001, the amount of the energy imbalance from the 2XCO2 has been
reduced to 3.71 Wm-2.
Since the actual measured energy imbalance from a change in CO2 was .2 Wm-2 for a 22 ppm change,
The 2XCO2 level would be 2.38 Wm-2.
This means the feedbacks likely do exists, but they are negative not positive.
 
RAMOSS said:
That is by volumn, yes.. but we know that how much CO2 will effect items, and how much CO2 is being pumped into the atmosphere. The fact that water vapor is a green house gas means that the excess CO2 causes a positive feedback loop, amplifying the effect of the CO2.
Click to expand...
So, the 5% is amplified to 10%? Water vapor is still 95%.
 
cabse5 said:
We also know that 95 percent of all greenhouse gases is water vapor and CO2 is less than 5 percent of all greenhouse gases. If the impending climate change catastrophe is nearly upon us, why do environmentalists/'scientists' choose to restrict the less than 5 percent of all greenhouse gases? Hum?
Click to expand...

And worse yet, they keep telling us what the change is, but not what the starting point is. By the IPCC's own calculations, the change from 278 ppm to 391 ppm cause 1.8 W/m^2 of forcing. With CO2 forcing already at 31 W/m^2 before the change, CO2 forcing only increased 5.8% for a 41% increase in CO2.

You warmers ask why?

Because forcing is a nonlinear function.
 
RAMOSS said:
That is by volumn, yes.. but we know that how much CO2 will effect items, and how much CO2 is being pumped into the atmosphere. The fact that water vapor is a green house gas means that the excess CO2 causes a positive feedback loop, amplifying the effect of the CO2.
Click to expand...

Yes, under laboratory conditions it does. It does so by increasing the water content in the air.

The radiative spectra from CO2 is absorbed in the first few microns of water, where the water skin is more apt to evaporate. Increased air temperatures also hold more moisture.

This is no doubt, a positive feedback is with H2O forcing. There are two major problems with the ignorance of stopping there with it though. The first is that we would have a runaway feedback if this exceeded 50%, and the alarmists like to claim more that 50%. Since the spectra from H2O and CO2 operate the same with the water skin area, if this were to happen, the runaway scenario would happen without changes in CO2 forcing.

In the laboratory, the 3.71 W/m^2 of forcing for a doubling of CO2 might be correct. However, H2O from the oceans also have a negative feedback.

There is a reason why CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere up past 80 km, and H2O drops close to zero before 10 km. It's because CO2 is a gas at all the atmospheric temperature ranges, and H2O is either a liquid of solid through the atmospheric temperature ranges. Temperature does not affect how much CO2 is in the air, but does affect how much H2O can be absorbed before precipitating out.

That's why we have clouds!

The extra water absorbed at sea level rises, and because there is more, when it reaches higher elevations, there are more clouds too. More clouds reduce the solar heating of the earths surface, and since this is source of energy for the greenhouse effect, it is a negative feedback to the greenhouse effect.

Both positive and negative forcing. Overall, the positive forcing is probably marginally greater than the negative forcing.

This is why all the alarmists models fail. They do not consider the indirect results of the sun, assuming it's power driving the greenhouse effect remain constant, and they also refuse to accept how the extra humidity reduces the clear sly areas.
 
longview said:
This means the feedbacks likely do exists, but they are negative not positive.
Click to expand...

I suspect the overall H2O feedback is actually slightly positive, but we are also in a time of reduced solar strength since the peak in 1958.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I suspect the overall H2O feedback is actually slightly positive, but we are also in a time of reduced solar strength since the peak in 1958.
Click to expand...
I was basing this on the actual measurements vs the theoretical ones.
If CO2 2X forcing is in fact 3.71 Wm-2, and the measured change was equal to 2.38 Wm-2,
I wonder if the TSI declined by .11 Wm-2 between 2000 and 2010?
It is possible, by the advocates of AGW insists that the Sun's energy is not a factor.
 
longview said:
I was basing this on the actual measurements vs the theoretical ones.
If CO2 2X forcing is in fact 3.71 Wm-2, and the measured change was equal to 2.38 Wm-2,
I wonder if the TSI declined by .11 Wm-2 between 2000 and 2010?
It is possible, by the advocates of AGW insists that the Sun's energy is not a factor.
Click to expand...

The sun would only have to decrease by about 0.03 to 0.04 W/m^2 to have a reduction 0f 0.11 Wm^2. That's how strong the indirect feedback to the sun is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom