investors.com — A major tenet of the global warming religion, straight from the Book of Gore, has been that the ability of the earth to handle increasing CO2 emissions is finite and that once the "tipping point" is reached, the earth will warm uncontrollably. Well, another climate domino has fallen — the myth that man-made CO2 is leading to climate catastrophe.
Jan 6, 2010 View in Crawl 4
ofoarheffinsakeJan 6, 2010
First of all: I know that I get all my climate science from stockbrokers and businessmen. I mean, what have they ever been wrong about before, am I right?Secondly: This is staggeringly obtuse. The study showed that the percentage of CO2 absorbed into the atmosphere versus the land/water has remained the same, but the actual AMOUNT of CO2 absorbed has gone steadily upwards in both land, air, and water. If I have 100 dollars and give you fifty, I gave you half. If I have 200 dollars and give you 100, I still gave you half, but guess what? You have twice as much money as before. That's what's going on with the CO2 emmissions, and if this guy is really pretending that he doesn't understand that, then I would think twice about investing a dime with him.]This is just remarkably stupid.
rentalcanoeJan 6, 2010
DEBUNKED.Although CO2 makes up only 0.04 percent of the atmosphere, that small number says nothing about its significance in climate dynamics. Even at that low concentration, CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and acts as a greenhouse gas, as physicist John Tyndall demonstrated in 1859. The chemist Svante Arrhenius went further in 1896 by estimating the impact of CO2 on the climate; after painstaking hand calculations he concluded that doubling its concentration might cause almost 6 degrees Celsius of warming—an answer not much out of line with recent, far more rigorous computations.Contrary to the contrarians, human activity is by far the largest contributor to the observed increase in atmospheric CO2. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, anthropogenic CO2 amounts to about 30 billion tons annually—more than 130 times as much as volcanoes produce. True, 95 percent of the releases of CO2 to the atmosphere are natural, but natural processes such as plant growth and absorption into the oceans pull the gas back out of the atmosphere and almost precisely offset them, leaving the human additions as a net surplus. Moreover, several sets of experimental measurements, including analyses of the shifting ratio of carbon isotopes in the air, further confirm that fossil-fuel burning and deforestation are the primary reasons that CO2 levels have risen 35 percent since 1832, from 284 parts per million (ppm) to 388 ppm—a remarkable jump to the highest levels seen in millions of years.Contrarians frequently object that water vapor, not CO2, is the most abundant and powerful greenhouse gas; they insist that climate scientists routinely leave it out of their models. The latter is simply untrue: from Arrhenius on, climatologists have incorporated water vapor into their models. In fact, water vapor is why rising CO2 has such a big effect on climate. CO2 absorbs some wavelengths of infrared that water does not so it independently adds heat to the atmosphere. As the temperature rises, more water vapor enters the atmosphere and multiplies CO2's greenhouse effect; the IPCC notes that water vapor (pdf) may “approximately double the increase in the greenhouse effect due to the added CO2 alone.”Nevertheless, within this dynamic, the CO2 remains the main driver (what climatologists call a "forcing") of the greenhouse effect. As NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt has explained, water vapor enters and leaves the atmosphere much more quickly than CO2, and tends to preserve a fairly constant level of relative humidity, which caps off its greenhouse effect. Climatologists therefore categorize water vapor as a feedback rather than a forcing factor. (Contrarians who don't see water vapor in climate models are looking for it in the wrong place.)Because of CO2's inescapable greenhouse effect, contrarians holding out for a natural explanation for current global warming need to explain why, in their scenarios, CO2 is not compounding the problem.<a class="user" href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense" rel="nofollow">http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=s ...</a>
ultimisJan 6, 2010
"The new study, published in the online journal Geophysical Research Letters, does not deny that increasing amounts of CO2 have been generated as the world has industrialized, eradicated disease, produced agricultural abundance and improved man's standard of living. It does show that only 45% of man's emissions, not 100% as warmers claim, stays in the atmosphere, and that includes the carbon emissions of the private jets that flew to Copenhagen last month and the limos that drove the occupants around."Not sure why this same story is being posted again. I also don't recall any warmers stating "100%" of CO2 was going into the atmosphere. Though alarmists usually state anything, so I wouldn't be suprised. But the scientists supporting AGW never stated this.As for the other comments in this thread: Way to not read the article. There is a theory amongst AGW that the oceans have not been able to keep up with human CO2 emissions. This study shows that Oceans/plants are absorbing as much as they ever did. You could state that this supports the "acidifcation of oceans" theory. But I'm not going to bother debating that.
danieltttJan 9, 2010
Greeny....we've looked at the science, the scientists, the history of scams such as this......Finally, after thoroughly examining YOU, it's conclusive, global warming is bull sh\t.....and even you know it....