How the GW myth is perpetuated

[typingrandomstuff]

cold core and hot surface plus the winds and rain of electromagnetics.

 

[Extrafire]

Minimizing our contributions would have no effects? How about cleaner air? How about no more SMOG?!

CO2 is not pollution, it is part of the air, and the vast majority of the volume of CO2 in the air is natural. Human activity contributes only a tiny percentage of the total. It is acknowledged by all sides in the debate that if the whole world met it's Kyoto targets, there would be no effect on global temperatures, and that's even acknowledged by those who believe in global warming catastrophism. In fact, being that our contribution is so relatively small, even if we eliminated all human contributions there would be no effect, even if the CO2 alarmism were true. That's what I was referring to when I said minimizing our contributions would have no effect.

Cleaner air? Smog? CO2 is part of the air. Adding it to the air has no effect on it's cleanliness, any more than adding oxygen would. In fact, so far efforts to minimize CO2 have resulted in increased CO2 emissions and dirtier air from real pollutants. Alternative fuels such as biodeisel, ethanol, hydrogen require more energy to produce than they deliver, resulting in more overall energy consumption and CO2 emissions. In the rush to supply the biodeisel market, vast areas of tropical rain forest have been slashed and burned for palm oil plantations resulting in great releases of CO2 from the forests as well as thousands of years of accumulated peat being burned, not to mention massive amounts of pollution in the air in that area.

You want clean air? So do I. Then target the pollutants, not CO2, 'cause you'll only make it worse that way.

 

[Extrafire]

More about dirty air, and the role it plays in global warming:

A new study indicates that poor Asians burning dung for energy may be a major cause of global warming. It may explain why glaciers are really melting — and why climate is more complicated than some think.
Related Topics: Global Warming
It used to be a straight-line theory based on easily connected dots. The Earth was warming due to increased levels of carbon dioxide generated by man, his factories, power plants and vehicles. The U.S. and the industrialized world had to drastically reduce its CO2 levels to prevent the poles from melting and the seas from rising.
But a new study in the Aug. 2 issue of the British science journal Nature suggests that the absence of technology, not its reckless use, may be a major factor in raising the Earth's global temperature.
The haze of pollution called the "Asian Brown Cloud," caused by wood and dung burned for fuel, may be doing more harm than the tailpipes of our SUVs.
Researchers led by Veerabhadran Ramanathan, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Scripps Institute of Oceanography in California, launched three unmanned aircraft last March from the Maldives island of Hanimadhoo to fly through the Brown Cloud at various altitudes.
A total of 18 missions were flown to explore the blanket of soot, dust and smoke that at times is two miles thick and covers an area about the size of the U.S.
They found that the cloud of soot and particulate matter boosted the effect of solar heating on the surrounding air by as much as 50%.
"These findings might seem to contradict the general notion of aerosol particulates as cooling agents in the global climate system . . . ." concluded the Nature article summing up the study. Dang. Just when we thought the science of global warming was settled.
These findings also may help to explain the rapid melting among the 46,000 glaciers on the Tibetan Plateau and why the Himalayan glaciers have been retreating since at least 1780.
This phenomenon also might help explain why carbon dioxide emissions and global temperatures don't track very well, if at all.
The Asian Brown Cloud was first discovered by Ramanathan in 1999. He had grown up near Madras, India, where his mother, like millions of other Indian homemakers, cooked with dried cow dung — a plentiful, and renewable, source of cheap fuel that was a good source of heat. One might call it the earliest form of biofuel.
Such pollution, because it contains the residue from hundreds of millions of dung-fueled cooking fires and inefficient wood and coal furnaces, carries an unusually large amount of soot.
It previously had been assumed that such particulate matter, like that from volcanic eruptions, had a cooling effect on the Earth. Guess not — at least not all the time.
A computer simulation run by Surabit Menon, an atmospheric scientist at Columbia University, using Chinese weather reports calculated the warming effects of the cloud. Menon found the brown cloud as it spread around the globe contributed more to global warming than Western greenhouse gas emissions.
S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, finds it "ironic that much of (this) pollution could be avoided by the use of cleaner fossil fuels, like gas, oil, and even coal, all of which release CO2."
Ramanathan has found some resistance to his discovery and its conclusions.
"My colleagues warned me when I got into this that global warming is not really pure science — politics is mixed in with it." An inconvenient truth for a dedicated scientist.
India, of course, is exempt from the Kyoto Protocol as a "developing" nation. It's not that easy to put a catalytic converter on a cow. Then there's the politics of the issue. It's easier to blame a soccer mom in her SUV than an Indian family struggling to get through the day.

Link

 

[Extrafire]

And even more research to debunk global warming hysteria:

New research

...concludes that the Earth’s climate is only about one-third as sensitive to carbon dioxide as the IPCC assumes. [...] According to Schwartz’s results, which are based on the empirical relationship between trends in surface temperature and ocean heat content, doubling the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would result in a 1.1oC increase in average temperature (0.1–2.1oC, two standard deviation uncertainty range). Schwartz’s result is 63% lower than the IPCC’s estimate of 3oC for a doubling of CO2 (2.0–4.5oC, 2SD range).
Right now we’re about 41% above the estimated pre-industrial CO2 level of 270 ppm. At the current rate of increase of about 0.55% per year, CO2 will double around 2070. Based on Schwartz’s results, we should expect about a 0.6oC additional increase in temperature between now and 2070 due to this additional CO2. That doesn’t seem particularly alarming.
[...]
Stephen Schwartz is a pretty mainstream climate scientist. Yet along with dozens of other studies in the scientific literature, his new study belies Al Gore’s claim that there is no legitimate scholarly alternative to climate catastrophism.
Indeed, if Schwartz’s results are correct, that alone would be enough to overturn in one fell swoop the IPCC’s scientific “consensus”, the environmentalists’ climate hysteria, and the political pretext for the energy-restriction policies that have become so popular with the world’s environmental regulators, elected officials, and corporations. The question is, will anyone in the mainstream media notice?
​

PDF Copy of the study


(Stephen E Schwartz is in the pay of the well known oil giant, Brookhaven National Lab - Atmospheric Science Division.)

 

[Tonington]

CO2 is not pollution, it is part of the air, and the vast majority of the volume of CO2 in the air is natural. Human activity contributes only a tiny percentage of the total. It is acknowledged by all sides in the debate that if the whole world met it's Kyoto targets, there would be no effect on global temperatures, and that's even acknowledged by those who believe in global warming catastrophism. In fact, being that our contribution is so relatively small, even if we eliminated all human contributions there would be no effect, even if the CO2 alarmism were true. That's what I was referring to when I said minimizing our contributions would have no effect.

Cleaner air? Smog? CO2 is part of the air. Adding it to the air has no effect on it's cleanliness, any more than adding oxygen would. In fact, so far efforts to minimize CO2 have resulted in increased CO2 emissions and dirtier air from real pollutants. Alternative fuels such as biodeisel, ethanol, hydrogen require more energy to produce than they deliver, resulting in more overall energy consumption and CO2 emissions. In the rush to supply the biodeisel market, vast areas of tropical rain forest have been slashed and burned for palm oil plantations resulting in great releases of CO2 from the forests as well as thousands of years of accumulated peat being burned, not to mention massive amounts of pollution in the air in that area.

You want clean air? So do I. Then target the pollutants, not CO2, 'cause you'll only make it worse that way.

Being a constituent of air does not mean it isn't a pollutant. If there is a deleterious effect by releasing a substance, it is pollution, whether or not it is found naturally.

It is not acknowledged by all sides that meeting any reduction, Kyoto or otherwise, will not have an effect on rising temperatures. You brought up climate sensitivities earlier and that is precisely what that statement you just said corresponds to.

 

[Extrafire]

Yeah, right! Adding oxygen to air is polluting. Adding nitrogen to air is polluting. Adding air to air is polluting. Right. I've already shown that human contributions are minuscule and the tiny reductions such as curly light bulbs or even achievement of Kyoto objectives are too small to make a difference. Al Gore, as VP asked administration scientists to determine what successful achievement of those objectives would do to global warming. The result, assuming that CO2 catastrophism is true - no reduction in global temperatures, not even a stop to global warming, only a reduction in the amount of warming of 7/100ths of 1 degree C over the next 50 years. And that's by people who believe in that nonsense! I've even heard prominent environmentalists admit that. Use a little logic here, if it's as bad as they say it is, nothing we're doing, short of complete elimination of human emissions will have any effect.

And there is no deleterious affect to releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. The science is very clear on this.

 

[Tonington]

Yeah, right! Adding oxygen to air is polluting. Adding nitrogen to air is polluting. Adding air to air is polluting. Right. I've already shown that human contributions are minuscule and the tiny reductions such as curly light bulbs or even achievement of Kyoto objectives are too small to make a difference. Al Gore, as VP asked administration scientists to determine what successful achievement of those objectives would do to global warming. The result, assuming that CO2 catastrophism is true - no reduction in global temperatures, not even a stop to global warming, only a reduction in the amount of warming of 7/100ths of 1 degree C over the next 50 years. And that's by people who believe in that nonsense! I've even heard prominent environmentalists admit that. Use a little logic here, if it's as bad as they say it is, nothing we're doing, short of complete elimination of human emissions will have any effect.

And there is no deleterious affect to releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. The science is very clear on this.

If there is deleterious effects, it is pollution, it really is that simple, by definition. An atmospheric pollutant has more cause and effect relationships than the atmospheric reactions. Soil and water?

Many nitrogen products are found naturally and are even beneficial, but when release of concentrated amounts occurs, it is harmful and thus a pollutant.

There are many deleterious effects associated with releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, it raises the pH of the water it dissolves into for one. Find the many effects that has on ecological systems, specifically on our natural and farmed food items.

 

[typingrandomstuff]

The other truth: if CO2 do not warm the earth, the excess of carbon dioxide in human bodies will kill. Excess of any stuff will kill.

The asian people do need to not burn the biofuels and dung, but I never heard of people burning dung before.

 

[typingrandomstuff]

To stop: convert excess to something useful and let no excess be untreated.

 

[Extrafire]

If there is deleterious effects, it is pollution, it really is that simple, by definition. An atmospheric pollutant has more cause and effect relationships than the atmospheric reactions. Soil and water?

Many nitrogen products are found naturally and are even beneficial, but when release of concentrated amounts occurs, it is harmful and thus a pollutant.

There are many deleterious effects associated with releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, it raises the pH of the water it dissolves into for one. Find the many effects that has on ecological systems, specifically on our natural and farmed food items.

I don't believe you're serious.

Air is 4/5 nitrogen and you're trying to say nitrogen can be a pollutant if released into the air? Or are you talking about nitrogen fertilizer? Yes, concentrated amounts of it can be harmful. But then that applies to anything. Everything is a poison, and nothing is a poison, it's a matter of degrees, or dosage. Water is necessary for human life, yet drinking too much can result in death. Same with salt. And radiation. Drinking a little alcohol is beneficial, but too much is harmful, even fatal. Thus following your logic, everything is pollution, which makes any argument for fighting pollution null and void.

As for CO2 in water, well the oceans have more CO2 in them than the atmosphere by far, and they release and absorb it depending on whether the temperature rises or falls. Doesn't seem at all to be harmful, and the effect on food items is only beneficial, as it enhances growth. In fact it is vital for any and all plant growth.

 

[Extrafire]

The other truth: if CO2 do not warm the earth, the excess of carbon dioxide in human bodies will kill. Excess of any stuff will kill.

The asian people do need to not burn the biofuels and dung, but I never heard of people burning dung before.

I don't know about the excess of CO2 in human bodies. I do know that at 6000 ppm in the atmosphere it becomes toxic to human life.

My father grew up in Europe nearly 100 years ago, son of a peasant farmer, and burning dung was a major source of heat, especially for cooking. Wood was scarce and was reserved for heating during the worst cold of winter.

The winter's accumulation of manure (dung) from the barns was hauled to the village square in the heat of summer, mixed with water into a slurry, spread out over the square and allowed to dry in the hot sun. Then it was cut into squares and rectangles and stacked under shelter in lieu of firewood. Couldn't have been a pleasant job, but they did what they had to do.

 

[Extrafire]

A couple points I haven't commented on yet,

It's not character assassination when there is a well documented effort to lobby for lax regulations and even fraudulent activity by those in a government position by appointment........ It is a matter of public record. I only hesitate to bring it up because I don't like conspiracy theories,

Problem is, legitimate associations can easily be misrepresented as something entirely different. I recall back in the 1990's when the environmentalists were waging a global war on BC's forest industry. The industry, unions, businesses and individuals got together and formed the BC Forest Alliance in order to counter the misinformation, and they were quite effective at it. Of course they were portrayed by the environmentalists as merely a tool of the forest industry, financed by their billions, and not to be believed. It's true that the forest industry was a major financier, but they didn't have billions available (billions in revenue does not equal billions available to spend. Profits are quite small.) and they made certain to always tell the truth, something the environmentalists rarely did on this topic. I suspect the organization you are referring to has been similarly slandered, and was a legitimate disseminator of factual evidence.

If you abandon logical debate based on facts and evidence in favor of character assassination or smear tactics (even if legitimate) you greatly lessen your credibility. Even Exon can have the correct evidence on their side.

Well, if the lower atmosphere bands were saturated, which they aren't, that is inconsequential, as it is in the absorption in the thin layer of the upper atmosphere where the infrared actually escapes Earth that determines Earth's heat balance.

No, the absorption of heat takes place near the surface. In fact, something like 80% is absorbed within the first 30 feet of the earth's surface.

[FONT=&quot]W[/FONT]ith respect to water vapour, while it is the largest greenhouse gas by proprtions, it is not the strongest forcing, nor does it have as many positive feedback loops as the other gases. With particular importance again going to the upper atmosphere where there is very little water vapour to block escaping infrared.

Yes, by proportion water is 97% of greenhouse gas. And yes, it is less effective, accounting for only 60 - 70% of total greenhouse effect, which still makes it by far the most effective. And it also has other effects on temperature, such as cloud formation in conjunction with cosmic rays and the sun's magnetic field which have a huge impact on climate. The feedback loops are purely hypothetical attempts to bolster the argument for CO2 induced climate change and don't show up in experiments. And the vast majority of escaping infrared is captured in the first 30 feet of the earth's surface.

Models which by the way are also being used to forecast the global warming on Mars.

Due, of course, to Martians excessive use of fossil fuels.

BC may have a glut of timber product, but global timber stocks are declining.

I guess I wasn't specific enough. The glut of timber is in the global market, which is why lumber prices are so low. If it was only an overabundance of timber on the part of BC we could name our price. Tropical forests may be in decline (along with all the flora and fauna particular to them) due to clearing for palm oil plantations to satisfy the skyrocketing demand for biofuel, but overall, world forests are not.
:roll:

 

[Extrafire]

There you have it: many more extreme events, a predicted consequence of warming..

Problem with these predictions is they so often fail. The only reason more extreme events were predicted was because the predicted increases in temperature failed to materialize, and they needed something to scare us with. And there seems to be a considerable amount of cherry picking involved.

Remember after Katrina, when they told us the disaster was because of global warming (not levee failure8O) and they said that's what we could look forward to from now on, and worse? Remember at the beginning of last year's hurricane season they predicted a worse one than the previous year? And then when it didn't appear to be happening, when instead it looked like a much milder than normal season, they issued a statement that global warming could produce a lower than normal season too. And then when it looked like it might be an average season, just to be sure their prediction would come true, they also issued a statement declaring that an average hurricane season could be caused by global warming. Kind of like the "leader" who watches to see which way the mob is going and then rushed to the front and shouts, "Follow me!"

Whether human activity is or is not the cause is still problematic, because the changes clearly attributable to human activities are approximately at the level of uncertainty in the data.

I'm wondering; just what are those changes clearly attributable to human activities? Not at all clear to me.

 

[Tonington]

I don't believe you're serious.

Air is 4/5 nitrogen and you're trying to say nitrogen can be a pollutant if released into the air? Or are you talking about nitrogen fertilizer? Yes, concentrated amounts of it can be harmful. But then that applies to anything. Everything is a poison, and nothing is a poison, it's a matter of degrees, or dosage. Water is necessary for human life, yet drinking too much can result in death. Same with salt. And radiation. Drinking a little alcohol is beneficial, but too much is harmful, even fatal. Thus following your logic, everything is pollution, which makes any argument for fighting pollution null and void.

As for CO2 in water, well the oceans have more CO2 in them than the atmosphere by far, and they release and absorb it depending on whether the temperature rises or falls. Doesn't seem at all to be harmful, and the effect on food items is only beneficial, as it enhances growth. In fact it is vital for any and all plant growth.

For the very last time, a pollutant is anything we release which has a deleterious effect, regardless of what compound it is. Regardless of whether or not it is a naturally found compound.

To illustrate your absurd point, a hypothetical ecosystem can sustain a certain threshold of toatal ammonia. Ammonia is part of the nitrogen cycle, and a huge component which must be closed off by bacteria in the soil. Normally, ammonia would be controlled by the fairly constant flows in and out of the natural nitrogen cycles. Animals wouldn't excrete as much ammonia, if they were left to grow on natural forages and feeds. In the agri-food industry now, we have firms feeding well above basal metabolic requirements for growth, amounts to ensure maximum growth rates ensue. The excess ammonia produced by the animals we rear is more than the farmer can accommodate. This is what is known as waste disposal problems. We put too much into feed, to ensure maximal growth, and end up with more fertilizer than we can use. If we leave that waste lying around, even though it is natural ( sure, cows love living in conditions like a feedlot...), the ecosystem cannot accommodate the excess load, and there is damage to the ecosystem.

I was specifically insinuating the oceans when I made the comment about CO2. The phylum Mollusca, specifically the class Bivalvia, rely on a carbonate equilibrium in the water to maintain the shell growth. When the pH of the oceans is lowered, as accounted by increased forcings due to the increase in carbon dioxide, the carbonate equilibrium is disrupted from natural levels, and the shellfish cannot maintain the shell density. As they grow larger, the shell becomes thinner relative to body mass, and increased mortality will follow. This is but one example in a field of many....corals are another matter, which provide the basis for many marine ecosystems...

P.S.
Of course anything can be considered a pollutant, but only when there is an obvious harmful effect. Judging by your limited comprehension of this definition, 5 extra milliliters would be pollution....but you would be wrong.

 

[CDNBear]

Michael Crichton is trying to sell his book. A book, a work of fiction, that contradicts the evidence of global warming.

The scientific method of research is exactly that. A majority of Climatologists have produced results that others in the field have reproduced. Consensus is not some evil word......it simply means that a majority of scientists in the field have agreed that global warming is a threat. They have agreed that according to the best evidence, the global temperatures are rising and human produced greenhouse gasses are causing it.

That concensus is falling apart as fast as AlBore's house of cards juan...

Well thomaska, are you saying the global temperatures are not rising? Are you saying that man has not pumped 8 trillion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution? These are facts that are irrefutable. You can dissagree that man is causing it I suppose, but who else is there? How do you explain the fact that we are losing cubic miles of ice in both poles and Greenland....ice that has taken thousands of centuries to form. How do you explain the fact that there is bare ground in the arctic that has been covered in ice for thousands of years? There is no evidence of any cycle or increased solar heat that would explain these things. I see no hysteria.....just hard, cold, facts.

Facts that have been slowly dismantled by laymen and people who want open debate on the issue. Something of which the proponents of the AGW theory have no interest in.

I've flown a lot over the Arctic and I have seen the change. I understand there is more impressive evidence of global warming in the Antarctic and Greenland but the Arctic is what I've seen.

I've done more then fly over it juan, I've driven on it, mined in it, trained on it...

Ya it's melting, just like it's been doing for thousands of years. True enough, it has sped up, but then again we are seeing an unprecidented increase in solar activity as previously unseen by mankind or in recorded history, but don't let those facts get in your way...Oh ya and what about the Polar Bear's??? Well their numbers have been on the rise since the 70's and are still climbing...

The latest government survey of polar bears roaming the vast Arctic expanses of northern Quebec, Labrador and southern Baffin Island show the population of polar bears has jumped to 2,100 animals from around 800 in the mid-1980s.
As recently as three years ago, a less official count placed the number at 1,400.
The Inuit have always insisted the bears' demise was greatly exaggerated by scientists doing projections based on fly-over counts, but their input was usually dismissed as the ramblings of self-interested hunters.

The National Post

Al Gore's movie was anything but cold, hard facts. It is mostly about what might happen in the extreme, distant future.

And don't forget the fact that most of it is pure fiction!!!

Extreme distant future? What about the unprecedentad hurricanes? What about the flooding going on all over the world? What about the change in the ocean temperature? Extreme distant future....your in it....it ain't later....it's now.

Don't forget global warming is only ONE problem we have currently. Assuming we will survive the pandemics and epidemics coming our way and avoid any nuclear altercation global warming is sure to be our undoing. Although....maybe if half the worlds population kicks it from avian flu or a new plague global warming will not be a problem.

Yes it is a problem, it needs to be addressed, but lets not cut the head off the world over junk science and hysterical nonsense posted and reposted by those who believe every lil thing they read, without wanting further proof.

There is so much evidence that the world is warming up it is hard to see how even the reddest neck could avoid seeing it.

The

I see insulting those that disagree with you is still the bulk of your arguement...From rednecks to pics of Liberal supports...tsk tsk...

 

[Zzarchov]

"No, the absorption of heat takes place near the surface. In fact, something like 80% is absorbed within the first 30 feet of the earth's surface."

This made me laugh.


Yes heat is absorbed, but then it is released. And it goes AWAY from the planet, unless it hits something (like CO2) that bounces it back.

Like a laser in a room of funhouse mirrors, the more "mirrors" the longer it takes the heat to leave, the warmer it gets as new heat comes in at the same speed.

 

[Tonington]

Just to add to Zzarchov's post, it is not the near surface absorption which is important, it is the upper atmosphere where the heat does escape that is the real problem. Less heat is radiating back into space now because of the greenhouse gases up there.

 

[typingrandomstuff]

More or less. Yup. That's the situation.

 

[Extrafire]

For the very last time, a pollutant is anything we release which has a deleterious effect, regardless of what compound it is. Regardless of whether or not it is a naturally found compound.

To illustrate your absurd point, a hypothetical ecosystem can sustain a certain threshold of toatal ammonia. Ammonia is part of the nitrogen cycle, and a huge component which must be closed off by bacteria in the soil. Normally, ammonia would be controlled by the fairly constant flows in and out of the natural nitrogen cycles. Animals wouldn't excrete as much ammonia, if they were left to grow on natural forages and feeds. In the agri-food industry now, we have firms feeding well above basal metabolic requirements for growth, amounts to ensure maximum growth rates ensue. The excess ammonia produced by the animals we rear is more than the farmer can accommodate. This is what is known as waste disposal problems. We put too much into feed, to ensure maximal growth, and end up with more fertilizer than we can use. If we leave that waste lying around, even though it is natural ( sure, cows love living in conditions like a feedlot...), the ecosystem cannot accommodate the excess load, and there is damage to the ecosystem.

Actually, we could use all that fertilizer. It would be great on the fields where the feed is grown, but the costs of transporting it back is prohibitive. Thus, a useful commodity (high value organic fertilzer) becomes a waste disposal problem. Like you I don't like feed lots, or concentrations of manure where it shouldn't be. All you've done is illustrate and support my absurd point, that it's a matter of degrees, or dosage, and that anything can be a poison or pollutant, which is irrelevant to the global warming debate.

I was specifically insinuating the oceans when I made the comment about CO2. The phylum Mollusca, specifically the class Bivalvia, rely on a carbonate equilibrium in the water to maintain the shell growth. When the pH of the oceans is lowered, as accounted by increased forcings due to the increase in carbon dioxide, the carbonate equilibrium is disrupted from natural levels, and the shellfish cannot maintain the shell density. As they grow larger, the shell becomes thinner relative to body mass, and increased mortality will follow. This is but one example in a field of many....corals are another matter, which provide the basis for many marine ecosystems...

I'm not sure exactly what point you're trying to make here. Since the amount of CO2 dissolved in the oceans is totally dependent on the temperature of the water, and since global warming includes the warming of the oceans, at which time it releases it into the atmosphere and during global cooling it absorbs it from the atmosphere, and since this has been going on for hundreds of thousands of years (just ask Al Gore) it would seem that natural levels are naturally fluctuating. And natural fluctuations have greatly exceeded what we're experiencing today (which appears to be the result of the warming of 800 years ago) and they survived just fine. Seems like a big concern over nothing.

P.S.
Of course anything can be considered a pollutant, but only when there is an obvious harmful effect. Judging by your limited comprehension of this definition, 5 extra milliliters would be pollution....but you would be wrong.

Rather confusing. 5 extra milliliters of what? In what situation?

 

[Extrafire]

"No, the absorption of heat takes place near the surface. In fact, something like 80% is absorbed within the first 30 feet of the earth's surface."

This made me laugh.


Yes heat is absorbed, but then it is released. And it goes AWAY from the planet, unless it hits something (like CO2) that bounces it back.

Like a laser in a room of funhouse mirrors, the more "mirrors" the longer it takes the heat to leave, the warmer it gets as new heat comes in at the same speed.

Well, duh, that's what the whole debate is about, the absorption of infrared heat by CO2 that is radiated out away from the planet. And it isn't about bouncing back (aka - reflecting). If that were the case, increased CO2 in the atmosphere would result in global cooling, as it would reflect the sunlight away before it reached the earth.