Climate change: Carbon dioxide emissions reach record high
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Water vapour is a symptom of the problem. Increasing C02 levels increases water vapour which then traps in more heat. The ultimate cause is the amount of C02.
Nothing. So you just disagree with the science.
Okay.
Well, since the science is credible, and your claims are not:
What should we do to reduce C02 emissions levels?
The science does not disagree with rising C02 levels as a cause of climate change. Water vapour is the result of increasing temperature stimulated by rising C02 levels.
Did you check out the link? It proves water vapour is a symptom, not the problem.
I checked out the link. But apart from trig, heat penetration, metallurgical adhesion, and cost quotations, I don't know much about climate science.
Which is why I asked you to explain it to me.
So that's a no.
Gotchya.
Let me know when you understand what you parrot.
LOL, don't you get all bent when other edit their posts?
Sorry, I just realized you did ask me a question earlier. It was just that you replied to a reply of mine to petros as if I was replying to you.
C02 levels increase the temperature, which then causes water vapour.
That water vapour exists due to the rise in C02 levels.
Which means that ultimately, C02 emissions are still what causes the increase in temperature.
How and why?
Is there proof of that, other than from your link?
If you can show how and why, with some form of evidence.
Water vapour is a transient response to temperature, not the driver. It's a response to the kinetic energy. The vapour and liquid phase water molecules have more energy when the temperature rises. If you put more water vapour into the atmosphere than it can handle, it will condense and fall out, because the two phases are a dynamic equilibrium.
How many Global Warming threads does a forum need?
Shouldn't we start combining them like the 9/11 threads?
Shouldn't we start combining them like the 9/11 threads?
Hard to keep track of them - especially the ones that have been hijacked by global warmers
Harmless?
A scrubbed stack emitting harmless CO2.
Except the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the higher the acidity in the oceans, higher displacement of O2, N2, and other gases, etc.I'd suggest you quit trying to think through that mud of ignorant and biased opinions of yours.
Yep, and one of the Times commenters explains it pretty well. He's educating a lemming named 'ultrabomb' in particular:
Ultrabomb at 10:17 AM May 25, 2012
Obviously, more emissions mean higher concentration. And a decade is too short a time period to look for a pattern of change in the climate. It's better to look at a century. And, the average temperature of the Earth has clearly risen over the last century.
jhklat at 10:25 AM May 25, 2012
if you treat CO2 concentrations as if it's just a simple bucket that gets poured into and poured out of, sure, more emissions means higher concentration. However, a system of complex feedbacks can behave quite differently.For example, if you stick your left hand in hot water, your body will adapt, and maintain a stable body temperature. Increase in heat to you won't simply make your body warmer. Similarly, if you walked into a refrigerator, your body will adapt, and maintain a stable body temperature. If you caught a fever, the external stimulus of your hand in hot water, or even your body in a refrigerator, wouldn't stop your base body temperature from rising.
So, yes, the past century, the earth has warmed and CO2 has risen. That fact doesn't mean that CO2 has been the cause for the warming...and in fact, it's much more likely that the relationship is the opposite direction.
Climate changes naturally, on all time scales. Denying natural climate change, and attributing the control of the weather to humanity is like primitive rain dancers.
Ultrabomb at 10:48 AM May 25, 2012 So, if global warming is causing the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide content, then what about all the carbon dioxide we're emitting?
jhklat at 3:19 PM May 25, 2012
Think back to any chemistry classes you took, and remember how buffers work...add acid, and it buffers to neutral, add base, and it buffers the opposite direction to neutral.
In this case, no matter what CO2 humans emit, atmospheric CO2 levels are driven by temperatures - so like a buffer, if we emit a lot of CO2, the system will simply absorb our excess...and if we were to say, *remove* CO2, it would release more from the system to buffer that lack.
You simply cannot model the CO2 cycle as a series of unrleated sinks and sources.
Ultrabomb at 10:33 PM May 25, 2012 You're wrong. Think of atmospheric carbon dioxide as water in a bathtub. The water's on and the drain's open. The water's flowing in at the same rate as it's draining out. Turn up the faucet and it overflows.
jhklat at 11:16 PM May 25, 2012 @Ultrabomb: Water in a bathtub? I'm sorry, but the carbon cycle is *much* more complex than just fixed and unrelated sources and sinks.
Did you study buffers in chemistry?
jhklat at 8:13 AM May 25, 2012 So CO2 emissions reach a record high, and *still* for the past 15 years, we've had no appreciable warming.
Sounds like another nail in the coffin of Natural Climate Change Denial.
Ultrabomb at 9:35 AM May 25, 2012 Actually, 9 of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 2000.
jhklat at 10:27 AM May 25, 2012 @Ultrabomb: of course "9 of 10" warmest years have been since 2000 - but the temperatures haven't risen in the past 15 years by any significant amount. The world is naturally warming, and by that measure, we'll *always* be getting "warmest" years. But if it's a "warmest" year by .001C, it's not *warming* quickly, now is it?
The unfalsifiable hypothesis of AGW is a religion, pure and simple.