Arctic Warming Scare Refuted

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/scare_watch_arctic_warming_is_1.html

Looking at the real facts associated with:

Atmospheric CO2 causing Global Warming

FACTS:
Concentration of atmospheric gases
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 383 ppm -- 0.0383% ------- Specific Heat Capacity - 0.844 kJ/kg K
Methane ------ (CH4) 1.745 ppm - 0.0001745% -- Specific Heat Capacity - 2.220 kJ/kg K
Water vapor -- (H2O) at surface - 1%-4% -------- Specific Heat Capacity - 1.930 kJ/kg K

CALCULATIONS:
@ 4% H2O vapor there is 104 times as much in the air as there is CO2 @ 0.0383%
@ 1.930 kJ/kg K, water vapor has 2.3 times as much SHC than does CO2 @ 0.844 kJ/kg K

CONCLUSION:
If both atmospheric H20 vapor and CO2 are considered “greenhouse” gases and there is 104 times as much H2O vapor with 2.3 times as much SHC …… as there is CO2 in the atmosphere ….. then an increase of even 200 ppm of CO2 should not really be significant relative to any increase in global warming due to a “greenhouse gas effect”.

The average mass of the atmosphere is about 5 quadrillion (5,000,000,000,000,000) metric tons.

Thus, @ 0.0383%, there is - 1,915,000,000,000 metric tons of CO2 in the atmosphere.
And, @ 4%, there is ----- 200,000,000,000,000 metric tons of H20 vapor in the atmosphere.

So, give or take 200 million metric tons of CO2, it doesn’t affect the total that much. And the added warming effect on the earth would be bout like lighting 8 or 10 candles to warm your house up on a cold February day.



.

Well I would like to make a motion that all global warming and greenhouse gas stories be transferred to the Science forum.

To me it is a scientific issue, not political.

And by putting it here Republicans feel duty bound to deny the facts, since they do not comport with republican hype/spin.

If it was over there people would not be constrained and would be free to pursue truth.

When corporations are handcuffed in their productivity and the cost of goods skyrocket and manufacturing jobs continue their march overseas, it is most certainly a political issue.

The left likes to frame this as a "science" question because you can't object to "science." Even when we experience coldest and snowiest temperatures in a decade and the global temperature ALWAYS goes up and down, any criticism of socialist plans gets to be labelled "anti-science" instead of a political disagreement. Meanwhile a record number of private jets flew into the DC area for the inauguration of Obama. Machiavelli would be very proud.

See what I mean?

Now, I'm not nearly as intelligent as many on this board and thus I don't what the truth of the matter actually is. The catch is I dobut very seriously if anyone here does either. As I read all the propaganda from both sides of the argument, I am becomeing more and more convienced that the facts is about the first thing to go.

Cato

Obviously the bulk of the questions are unanswered. The question becomes what to do about that.

I repeat that my carbon footprint is intentionally light. I have no problem with being ecologically responsible and that governments should encourage individuals and corporations to do the same.

The issue is whether we should cripple domestic industry for what may or may not be a crisis, which itself may or may not be avertable. I suggest the answer is no. I also suggest that claiming that my position is anti-science obscures the issue and intentionally insults those who share my position.

DRUDGE: Snow falls in United Arab Emirates for only second time in recorded history...

Well then why object to discussing it as a scientific issue instead of political?

Because too many want to use junk science for political purposes.

sodbuster wrote:Well then why object to discussing it as a scientific issue instead of political?

Don't be silly Sherman.

The discussion on global warming is 96% political right now.

Read my post again, ..... even an ex SP should be capable of following my math.

.

Stephanie wrote:Because too many want to use junk science for political purposes.

And therein is the problem.

sodbuster wrote:Well then why object to discussing it as a scientific issue instead of political?

It is both, Sherman, and pretending that somehow your view is the "objective, non-political one" is donkey dumplings.

There is a website that I go to from time to time and look over. it is a neat site that attempts to bring both sides of the arguement. The site is (www.climatedebatedaily.com) It is worth looking at. Additionally, you can take a course in climate for the Teaching Company on line. I'm in the process of doing that right now. If nothing else its worth the money just to get some idea of seperating fact from political propaganda, which is what I'm looking for.

On a personal note, I think both sides are full of horse hockey. It is obvious the left is using climate change as a crisis to push a socialistic and totalatarian agenda and the right just denies anything is happening to the climate. Seems to me the very first thing to have been left out of the mix is "the facts".

What exactly have you heard from the right that disregards the facts?

Al Gore politicized global warming and faked the science.

SheikBen wrote:What exactly have you heard from the right that disregards the facts?

That nothing is happening. That the climate isn't really changing. The right basically take the opposite view of the left, no matter what it is. Other than being a counter balanace for the left's ignorance, they serve no real purpose and just like the left are ignoring facts.

Let me ask you a question. The left, through people like Al Gore and the NASA Scientist Hanson (his first name escapes me) tells us the Globe is heating up. However, we have been told by many on the right that during the past 7 years or so, the globe has cooled, giving up most all of the temperture rise of the past 30 years. Now, my question is, what does the data really say. By that I don't mean what do the politicians or those with an agenda say, I mean what does the data say. Along with that question, what does the data really mean for the future. By that I don't mean what does either side want it to mean, either.

If you can answer those two questions, honestly with just fact, then you will have done something that most of the political hacks on both side haven't managed to do and just ignore.

"...pretending that somehow your view is the "objective, non-political one" is donkey dumplings."

Well that is just it, Sheik.

I have said repeatedly I do not have an opinion, since I don't have the scientific education or background.

So I rely on qualified people with the credentials and the wherewithal who say in overwhelming numbers that global warning is real beyond reasonable doubt and poses a huge potential problem for us.

I do not claim it is a republican problem.

Matter of fact you could argue it is a Democrat problem.

Since the economy seems to be rolling along full blast when they are in control.

And factories are humming right along, spewing pollutants into the air.

Instead of sitting silent and empty.

Now I know you can find a few renegade "scientists" who will say what they are paid to say.

And some may be sincere in their belief that there is no global warming.

But the vast majority say otherwise.

And almost always the deniers resort to anecdotal evidence like we see here.

i.e. it is snowing in Chicago or there is a blizzard in Buffalo.

You see, anyone who disagrees with what you believe you marginalize. The thousands of scientists who disagree with Algore (who's made a hefty profit off this) you refuse to even recognize as scientists.

You've had your mind made up for you and anyone who disagrees with the party line is a renegade, or a right wing whacko, or some other label. Then you ask why it's political.

Well Steph riddle me this.

Do the vast majority of professional scientists say global warming is real and pose a potential problem for us.?

Or do they not?

Sherm,

I wasn't aware that truth was subject to a majority vote.

SheikBen wrote:Sherm,

I wasn't aware that truth was subject to a majority vote.

That is a good observation.

But for someone like myself who is ignorant on the subject, I think it is wise to listen to a preponderance of the evidence.

Most of the really smart scientists say it is real.

On the other side are rightwing ideologues who for whatever reason do not like the "pointy head intellectuals." (that was a george wallace description for educated folks)

So do the really dumb scientists think global warming is not not man made or that it's not real?

Aaron wrote:So do the really dumb scientists think global warming is not not man made or that it's not real?

Well aaron an "underwhelming minority" of scientists agree with the GW unbelievers.

Along with an overwhelming majority of rightwing gasbags who have a loyal following amongst the ditto heads.

sodbuster wrote:"...pretending that somehow your view is the "objective, non-political one" is donkey dumplings."

Well that is just it, Sheik.

I have said repeatedly I do not have an opinion, since I don't have the scientific education or background.

So I rely on qualified people with the credentials and the wherewithal who say in overwhelming numbers that global warning is real beyond reasonable doubt and poses a huge potential problem for us.

I do not claim it is a republican problem.

Matter of fact you could argue it is a Democrat problem.

Since the economy seems to be rolling along full blast when they are in control.

And factories are humming right along, spewing pollutants into the air.

Instead of sitting silent and empty.

Now I know you can find a few renegade "scientists" who will say what they are paid to say.

And some may be sincere in their belief that there is no global warming.

But the vast majority say otherwise.

And almost always the deniers resort to anecdotal evidence like we see here.

i.e. it is snowing in Chicago or there is a blizzard in Buffalo.

I offer the same challenge to you I posed to Sheik. What does the data say. Not what does Al Gore or Obama or Howard Dean say, but what does the data say.