Is there ANYBODY in the world that still denies the severity of global warming?

[CyberGnu]

Vanguard, didn't realize you had answered many of the issues already *tipping hat*

[axi]

And as per usual, the media gets it wrong again, It's Water Vapour that is the MAIN greehouse gas on this Earth, not CO2.

I don't know about you, but when the words "water vapour"and "atmosphere" come through my mind, then another little word kicks in: "saturation".

At the mean earth atmospheric temperature, the atmoshere can sustain a given perentage of water vapour. If more is added, then it condenses and comes back to earth as rain. So water vapour has no primary role in global warming, since it's concentration in the atmosphere is solely dependant of the temperature. OTOH there is no saturation point for CO2 and it's concentration can increase indefinitely.

I wonder if there is a limit in the stupidity of the arguments that people are prepared to trust in order to adjust their ideological and scientifical beliefs according to their political and economic interests.

[Guest]

Originally posted by axi
At the mean earth atmospheric temperature, the atmoshere can sustain a given perentage of water vapour. If more is added, then it condenses and comes back to earth as rain. So water vapour has no primary role in global warming, since it's concentration in the atmosphere is solely dependant of the temperature. OTOH there is no saturation point for CO2 and it's concentration can increase indefinitely.

You are undoubtable correct. However, there are two things that contribute to the effectiveness of a gas in creating a greenhouse. One of course is the amount or concentration of the gas in the atmosphere. The other is the relative efficiency of absorbtion of radiation and conversion to heat. In this respect Water Vapour really is the main contributor to Greenhouse as the following table shows:
Table 2 Results of HITRAN calculations
Absorbing Gas/Vapour %Absorbtion
CO2 36Pa 17.6
2xCO2 19.3
Water 785Pa 68.7
CO2+Water 72.8
2xCO2+Water 73.5
Reference: Hug & Barrett versus IPCC

I wonder if there is a limit in the stupidity of the arguments that people are prepared to trust in order to adjust their ideological and scientifical beliefs according to their political and economic interests.

This of course requires not response.

[Dauphin]

"Greenhouse effect" and "global warming" aren't the same thing. The latter is a variation statement the former is an absolute.

The amount of water in the atmosphere is practically a constant, therefore the global temperature is not changing because of it. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, therefore it is causing a variation.

CO2 increases are the largest contributor to the warming trend, even if CO2 itself is not the largest contributor to the current greenhouse effect.

[Dr. Nick]

Axi, Did you know that California has, on its own, passed a law limiting CO2 emissions of cars?

Do you have data on CO2 emissions from cars? Because, AFAIK, only catalytic converter cars emit CO2. This will only increase emissions of CO, NOx and other hydrocarbons.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


But a lot of scientists (in fact nearly all) don't. And I think I'll listen to them over you people, thank you very much .

Batman's a scientist.

Seriously, I think that if you look harder, you'd find that nowhere nearly "nearly all" scientists believe in the Global Warming tripe. It's almost as if people who believe in Global Warming never sat down and said "Hey! Earth, even within recorded history, is full of hot/cold cycles!"

[CyberGnu]

El Awrence, all burning of hydrocarbons result in CO2. The catalystic converter merely eliminates all the extra junk you get in the exhaust, such as NOx. The only ways to reduce CO2 emissions are to increase fuel efficiency, drive less and/or use other fuels. (CH4 yields more energy per carbon than longer hydrocarbons does).


Lonestar, what exactly are this multidute of scientists doing then? They are certainly not publishing. As I showed wraith, in the last year there were over 50 articles in the journal science that mentions global warming. NOT ONE SINGLE ONE OF THEM SUGGESTS THAT GLOBAL WARMING ISN'T REAL.

I have to second axis question: I wonder if there is a limit in the stupidity of the arguments that people are prepared to trust in order to adjust their ideological and scientifical beliefs according to their political and economic interests.

[Dr. Nick]

Cybergnu, but aren't motors restricted in their O2 supply for combustion? While combustion still takes place, I'm pretty sure that the majority of the combusted hydrocarbons form CO rather than CO2 from their limited supply of air available for combustion.

I thought that cars without catalytic converters emitted only negligible amounts of CO2 when compared with the CO emission.

[Dr. Nick]

And, I will third the question as well.

[Guest]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Lonestar, what exactly are this multidute of scientists doing then? They are certainly not publishing. As I showed wraith, in the last year there were over 50 articles in the journal science that mentions global warming. NOT ONE SINGLE ONE OF THEM SUGGESTS THAT GLOBAL WARMING ISN'T REAL.

Don't get published if they don't get accepted.
Don't get accepted if the reviewers say not too.

Most of the papers that go against anthropogenically enhanced greenhouse effect are in weather and geographic publications.

Futhermore, science is not a popularity contest. Scientists are like the rest of us. Just as likely to be fooled by something as not. However, over time, this tends to correct itself as those holding to hard and fast theories retire and newer generations arise with newer theories.