Forbes: Global Warming: Hot Sensations versus Cold Facts

[elkabong82]

Let my preface this by saying the ends rarely justify the means, but in order to get enough people to seriously be concerned about the wellfare of the environment, both locally and golbally, to the point that perpetrators (polluters and the like) feel they actually will be held accountable in serious fashion, those people have to feel there is a real threat. I don't agree with the exaggerations and manipulations, on either side, but ultimately it seems such is the only way to get a realistic and viable push on the go green initiatives.

If you think go green inititiaves are unnecessary, that human civilization doesn't have a significant impact on environment, I'll ask you to go to LA or Mexico City and take deep breathes, and tell me that humans have nothing to do with the smoggy, polluted air and the stink. I agree that there are at least some who overexxagerate our impact, but to deny it's there is also an exaggeration, IMO.

[twa]

We could stage our own extinction event...who's with me???

added

peter I am fine with staged replacement of coal burning power plants with nuclear or NG,and support the higher mpg requirement for new cars

Corn based ethanol(as you know) is a waste,as is draconic co2 reduction

[Skins24]

I'm glad you found it!

I am not joking. First of all, the water is already warmer due to global warming. Warmer water effects hurricanes. That means you are wrong.

What exactly am I wrong about? You have yet to say. Just to save you some time, nothing I said was wrong. Sorry bud.

2009 was an extremely inactive year for hurricanes because we had a strong El Nino that year. During an El Nino year we always see low hurricane activity. This is a well known fact and absolutely no one is disputing it. An El Nino is when the waters of the Pacific are warmer than usual off the coast of South America.

Again, this has nothing to do with global warming.

Though we saw no US landfalls, 2010 was a very active hurricane season. This was because we had a strong La Nina last year. A La Nina is colder waters off the coast of South America.

But i wanted to go beyond that and highlight that "absolutely nothing" is extremely strong language. Unless used judiciously, it is a sure sign of bull****. Your usage of it was far, far from judicious.

How so?

You have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about or anything about this subject so how can you possibly say that. That "absolutely nothing" is far from strong language. If global warming had anything to do with the previous two hurricane seasons then we would have seen the OPPOSITE of what we saw. This is not hard or complicated at all. This is extremely simple and if you would just stop and let the big boys do the talking for a while you would see that.

I transcribed that out of a video. That was an example of language used by people who know what they are talking about.

I know exactly what they're talking about but again....that has absolutely nothing to do with anything that is being discussed here or anywhere else on this message board.

Please inform us of the point you were trying to make with that?

[Burgold]

I think what he's saying is, scientifically speaking, those who say never are almost never right and those who say always are almost always wrong. In addition, he showed you an impact which warming would have on hurricanes (it increases their intensity) and therefore proved that global warming has an impact on hurricanes.

[PeterMP]

I think what he's saying is, scientifically speaking, those who say never are almost never right and those who say always are almost wrong. In addition, he showed you an impact which warming would have on hurricanes (it increases their intensity) and therefore proved that global warming has an impact on hurricanes.

And that would be ALL hurricanes. In the context of a La Nina year, warming is going to have an effect. In the context of a El Nino year, warming is going to have an effect.

[alexey]

What exactly am I wrong about? You have yet to say. Just to save you some time, nothing I said was wrong. Sorry bud.

...

You have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about or anything about this subject so how can you possibly say that. That "absolutely nothing" is far from strong language. If global warming had anything to do with the previous two hurricane seasons then we would have seen the OPPOSITE of what we saw. This is not hard or complicated at all. This is extremely simple and if you would just stop and let the big boys do the talking for a while you would see that.

If you say that one thing has absolutely nothing to do with another, then existence of ANY interaction between these two things is sufficient to make you wrong.

Now, are you sure that really wanted to say "absolutely nothing"?

I know exactly what they're talking about but again....that has absolutely nothing to do with anything that is being discussed here or anywhere else on this message board.

Please inform us of the point you were trying to make with that?

See Burgold's post. People who know what they are talking about use a particular kind of language. You are using a different language.

[twa]

1. Do you want to point out what is a unreasonable/not cost effective goal (keep in mind that coal based energy production methods has other long term costs related to human health and the like when answering this question)?

Kinda hard when they are fluid

Fights on

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-12-28/epa-texas-feud-escalates-over-new-carbon-regulations.html

The EPA officials said today it’s too early to know what the new rules, known as “new source performance standards” for pollutants under the Clean Air Act, will entail.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/12/27/epa-texas-go-to-war-over-carbon-emission-rules/comment-page-1/#comments

EPA, Texas go to war over carbon-emission rules

[PeterMP]

Kinda hard when they are fluid

Fights on

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-12-28/epa-texas-feud-escalates-over-new-carbon-regulations.html

The EPA officials said today it’s too early to know what the new rules, known as “new source performance standards” for pollutants under the Clean Air Act, will entail.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/12/27/epa-texas-go-to-war-over-carbon-emission-rules/comment-page-1/#comments

EPA, Texas go to war over carbon-emission rules

What is your opinion?

[btfoom]

Let my preface this by saying the ends rarely justify the means, but in order to get enough people to seriously be concerned about the wellfare of the environment, both locally and golbally, to the point that perpetrators (polluters and the like) feel they actually will be held accountable in serious fashion, those people have to feel there is a real threat. I don't agree with the exaggerations and manipulations, on either side, but ultimately it seems such is the only way to get a realistic and viable push on the go green initiatives.

If you think go green inititiaves are unnecessary, that human civilization doesn't have a significant impact on environment, I'll ask you to go to LA or Mexico City and take deep breathes, and tell me that humans have nothing to do with the smoggy, polluted air and the stink. I agree that there are at least some who overexxagerate our impact, but to deny it's there is also an exaggeration, IMO.

You are confusing two different issues.

There is no one who says that humans don't pollute. As you said, it is obvious.

This is VERY different that the AGW folks who say that humans affect the overall world environment and how it effects the entire planet.

Yes, there are things that humans could do to lessen pollution and that would be great. On the other hand, there are NO definitive experiments to show that man causes the earth to warm, cool, neither, or both. That is the big difference. Don't believe me, well look at temps during summer vs winter. See that big yellow thing in the sky? Since noone can predict those effects or take them out of the equations, then the models and predictions will always be biased, period.

[Burgold]

On the other hand, there are NO definitive experiments to show that man causes the earth to warm, cool, neither, or both.

On the other hand, there was a definitive experiment that shows that a change in man's behavior could reduce the hole in the ozone layer... and it extends to reason that if cutting out a behavior provided the cure, then the behavior itself had an impact... an impact that was worldwide.

[twa]

What is your opinion?

I think the EPA is a bunch of bureaucratic asses that are overstepping their bounds,as well as idiotic and a drain on society.

The sheer nonsense they engage in would drive a man to drink and they make friggin Perry look like a genius(which is quite a feat)

or did you mean their new focus on co2?

[Larry]

You are confusing two different issues.

There is no one who says that humans don't pollute. As you said, it is obvious.

This is VERY different that the AGW folks who say that humans affect the overall world environment and how it effects the entire planet.

You are confusing facts with talking points.

Just as an aside, I'll point out that your two statements:

Man pollutes.

Man cannot affect the Earth's environment.

are contradictory. If Man pollutes the Earth, then Man has, by definition, affected the Earth's environment.

Yes, there are things that humans could do to lessen pollution and that would be great. On the other hand, there are NO definitive experiments to show that man causes the earth to warm, cool, neither, or both. That is the big difference. Don't believe me, well look at temps during summer vs winter. See that big yellow thing in the sky? Since noone can predict those effects or take them out of the equations, then the models and predictions will always be biased, period.

There are no definitive experiments that show that smoking causes cancer.

There are no definitive experiments that show that deficits are bad for the US economy. Or that the law of supply and demand works. Or that doubling the income tax rate during a recession will be bad for the economy.

And it is guaranteed that there never will be.

This is because economics, like climate science, is a science in which it is impossible to create a real world in a laboratory.

----------

OTOH, all of the following statements are absolute, unquestioned, facts. These statements can, and have been demonstrated:

1) The Earth receives energy, on the day lit side, in the form of solar radiation. This energy is mostly in the form of visible light, and the "near infrared": infrared light which is almost as energetic as visible light.

2) The Earth radiates energy into space, on the day and night sides. However, since the Earth is considerably cooler than the Sun, this light occurs in the "far infrared": Light which is much lower energy than visible light. (It's "redder", so to speak.)

3) CO2 permits light in the visible and near infrared ranges (the "incoming" light) through. However, it absorbs far infrared (the "outgoing" light).

4) If you add energy to a body, and prevent that energy from leaving, the temperature of that body goes up.

[chipwhich]

There are no definitive experiments that show that deficits are bad for the US economy. Or that the law of supply and demand works. Or that doubling the income tax rate during a recession will be bad for the economy.

This is because economics, like climate science, is a science in which it is impossible to create a real world in a laboratory.

I am going to have to remember these arguments the next time you have a thought.

Opinions are worthless in science, therefore they will not be considered.

[Larry]

I am going to have to remember these arguments the next time you have a thought.

Opinions are worthless in science, therefore they will not be considered.

Next time you see me arguing that "economists cannot exactly predict what the closing stock market price will be, a month from now, therefore it is impossible for anything Man does to affect the economy", please feel free.

In the mean time, you feel like turning that witticism on the person who is making that argument? Or is your position that science is useless, when compared to your opinion?

[elkabong82]

You are confusing two different issues.

There is no one who says that humans don't pollute. As you said, it is obvious.

This is VERY different that the AGW folks who say that humans affect the overall world environment and how it effects the entire planet.

Yes, there are things that humans could do to lessen pollution and that would be great. On the other hand, there are NO definitive experiments to show that man causes the earth to warm, cool, neither, or both. That is the big difference. Don't believe me, well look at temps during summer vs winter. See that big yellow thing in the sky? Since noone can predict those effects or take them out of the equations, then the models and predictions will always be biased, period.

We pollute and we do harm to the ozone layer. Pollution affects weather (for example acid rain) and ozone layer plays a part in temperature as well. I already said how much of an effect humans have is probably exaggerated, but I then went on to point out why such is exaggerated. I'm just not buying that human civilization doesn't have some impact on climate when we impact air quality to such severe degrees as are the case in LA and Mexico City to name a few. Like I said previously, IMO it's equally foolish to completely dismiss humans having any impact.

[PeterMP]

I think the EPA is a bunch of bureaucratic asses that are overstepping their bounds,as well as idiotic and a drain on society.

The sheer nonsense they engage in would drive a man to drink and they make friggin Perry look like a genius(which is quite a feat)

or did you mean their new focus on co2?

To what if any extent should the government try and reduce CO2 production?

And if it should/can by how much?

[twa]

To what if any extent should the government try and reduce CO2 production?

And if it should/can by how much?

I'm not overly concerned with co2 and believe our focus needs to be on other emissions ,but by encouraging investment and research into cleaner energy sources,as well as streamlining the permitting to accomplish that.

The issue at question is not just the limits,but the manner of reaching them.

The Texas vs EPA bs is a example where methodology and definitions of point of source conflicts with common sense.(flex permitting accomplishes the goal)

If the goal is to actually reduce total emissions that is,otherwise you have situations like the cleanup of the gulf spill where technology was not used because of specific limits on discharges.

[Skins24]

If you say that one thing has absolutely nothing to do with another, then existence of ANY interaction between these two things is sufficient to make you wrong.

Now, are you sure that really wanted to say "absolutely nothing"?

You still don't get it. YES.

The past two hurricane seasons are completely unrelated to "global climate change"

You are vastly overestimating the effects of global climate change especially when any changes are not occurring as drastically as we're being lead to believe. There are many things that make any effects of GCC negligible as they are simply more powerful or overwhelming than GCC. El Nino and La Nina episodes are one of those things.

See Burgold's post. People who know what they are talking about use a particular kind of language. You are using a different language.

This still makes no sense and you still haven't posted what you're talking about.

You want me to use technical yet understandable language? Fine.

And please note - I'm not using wiki or google. This is first hand knowledge and language from studying this stuff close to half my life.

To further explain the 2009 hurricane season -

The mid 2009-early 2010 ENSO (commonly referred to as simply El Nino), though short lived was a particularly strong one. Well, it of course didn't start that way. Through the summer the SOI wasn't that high but still, high enough to lead to one of the quietest hurricane seasons in over a decade. It peaked around the beginning of the winter where we saw +1.8C. Levels not seen since 1997-'98! Unlike that episode however, this was more west based, and the east coast (well snow lovers on the east coast) benefited from this greatly (with help from the NAO of course). As in most (but not all) cases as the El Nino disappeared, La Nina began to rear it's head early spring 2010. As you can see -

http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/anomnight.current.gif

the La Nina still persists and (this I did look up) it is forecast to last through at least early spring of this year when we'd then return to more neutral conditions. If it lasts longer into the summer then we can expect again this hurricane season to be active. La Ninas, though occurring in the Pacific, typically reduce shear over the Atlantic causing favorable conditions for tropical development.

[twa]

on a related note...countries abandoning co2 efforts left and right

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BR06120101228

Japan postponed plans for a national emissions trading scheme on Tuesday, bowing to powerful business groups that warned of job losses as they compete against overseas rivals facing fewer emissions regulations.

...

The decision is a blow to the European Union's hopes that other top greenhouse gas polluters will introduce emissions trading schemes and follows setbacks to similar efforts in the United States and Australia.

A U.N. meeting in Cancun, Mexico, this month failed to clear uncertainty over a global climate framework beyond 2012. This is likely to cause some big emitters to take their time in rolling out tougher greenhouse gas regulations, particularly for carbon dioxide (CO2) from burning fossil fuels such as coal and oil.

Neighboring South Korea has delayed the introduction of its emissions trading laws into parliament until February because of business concerns.

Japan's National Strategy Minister, Koichiro Gemba, who was appointed to review the government's core green policy steps, said the trading scheme needed further careful study, indicating that it had effectively been shelved.

[btfoom]

You are confusing facts with talking points.

Just as an aside, I'll point out that your two statements:

Man pollutes.

Man cannot affect the Earth's environment.

are contradictory. If Man pollutes the Earth, then Man has, by definition, affected the Earth's environment.

See, there you go again, trying to summarize what I said but not getting it. I said that humans do pollute the environment in some areas, BUT that doesn't mean that MMGW is fact.

There are no definitive experiments that show that smoking causes cancer.

There are no definitive experiments that show that deficits are bad for the US economy. Or that the law of supply and demand works. Or that doubling the income tax rate during a recession will be bad for the economy.

And it is guaranteed that there never will be.

This is because economics, like climate science, is a science in which it is impossible to create a real world in a laboratory.

Thanks, you just proved my point in every thread regarding AGW, period!!! Thanks. If this isn't a science that can be proved, than we shouldn't be making full scale changes to how we live, should we????

----------

OTOH, all of the following statements are absolute, unquestioned, facts. These statements can, and have been demonstrated:

1) The Earth receives energy, on the day lit side, in the form of solar radiation. This energy is mostly in the form of visible light, and the "near infrared": infrared light which is almost as energetic as visible light.

2) The Earth radiates energy into space, on the day and night sides. However, since the Earth is considerably cooler than the Sun, this light occurs in the "far infrared": Light which is much lower energy than visible light. (It's "redder", so to speak.)

3) CO2 permits light in the visible and near infrared ranges (the "incoming" light) through. However, it absorbs far infrared (the "outgoing" light).

4) If you add energy to a body, and prevent that energy from leaving, the temperature of that body goes up.

Nice, did you google all of those 'facts' or were they just running around in your head?

Unfortunately, you sound like a 9th grade science kid who just learned a few things about how the Earth's environment works and simply regurgitates them back without any understanding of how the real science works.

1. Can you explain how the different areas of the Earth absorb or reflect the sun's energy, based on location, type of topography (sand, forest, jungle, grasslands, lakes, rivers, oceans, etc) and how they process this energy?

2. Can you explain how cloud cover may or may not affect the absorption or refection of this energy and what affect that has on the ground temperatures?

3. While it is very nice that the Earth is cooler than the sun, what does this really have to do with radiation into space? Satellites that orbit above the earth constantly radiate into 4 deg K 'deep space' on the non-sun visible side. If these small objects can radiate to that low temperature, please explain why the Earth does not.

4. CO2 is a natural by-product of the earth's air-breathing animals. CO2 is a necessary input into the Earth's vegetation/trees etc. If we cut back on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, don't we risk depleting the Earth's vegetation and tree supply? Also, what is the largest supplier of CO2 into the Earth's atmosphere? Volcanic activity, which comes from, (wait for it, ... almost there, keep scratching your head...) Taa-Daa, the Earth? So, I'm sure that you wouldn't want to argue with Mother Earth, would you????

5. So, a basic Thermo-Dynamic question, kind of like the ones posed in any first year science class. Yes, if you put energy into a system and don't allow it to expend that energy, it will heat up. Congrats, you win there (or maybe not). Well, I'll give it to you when you define the boundaries of the system (in this case, the Earth) and show how the energy coming into that boundary exceeds the energy coming out of that boundary. You'll of course need to provide numbers with regards to both sides of these boundaries, as well as the rate of absorption/rejection, differentials of the different boundary layers, and if the heating/cooling are constant (if not, we need the equations showing how these are affected by time, places in orbit, atmospheric thickness, etc).

Thanks, I look forward to the reply.

Happy New Year.

[LD0506]

While the storms of debate rage back and forth, the very fact that mankind has formed the question "Can we and are we affecting and altering the planet's macroenvironmental balance?" has caused considerable resources to be assigned to building the machinery (intellectually) to begin to answer the question. No matter what, this is a huge addition to the resources of the species. We increase our "wealth" of assets in that new science, new techniques and new questions are developed. That is the primary manner in which science benefits mankind.

Scientists that do not have an axe to grind politically or economically can state uncategorically that something is happening, and that the consequences might be dire. That alone is sufficient basis to try and find out what the what is, and what the results might be. Scientists are in some ways a lot like intelligence analysts, they cannot ever predict with 100% certainty what will happen, the most they can do is give you a range of probabilities on the possibilities. That's not playing CYA, that's their job! Some people arguing that the lack of absolute assurances means there is no point in pursuing contingency plans is much like saying no terrorist bomb has yet exploded in Dayton so there is no point in even considering what if.

This issue has been co-opted by a lot of loons and fuzzbrains, trumpeted by a large segment of the media that uses it to sell more ad space, and vehemently opposed by many others that see it cutting into their profit margins, but none of those factions have any real say on what science can discover or how it will be applied. Thank God.

[Burgold]

I think the notion that man can not alter the macro enviornment is a fallacy. We've seen it over and over again. Man's behavior has resulted in creating deserts that have losted hundreds of years, has resulted in Ozone holes that impact the whole of the planet, has changed the level of acidity in entire oceans. It's ridiculous to think that man can not change the world because man has! Over and over again and in relative terms, fairly permanently. We've caused world wide extinctions, changes in landmass, changes in air, changes in our atmosphere, and changes in our water. These changes will take generations if not dozens of generations for the Earth to fix and that is if man suddenly stopped or left the Earth entirely.

It's comforting to pretend that we can not impact the world because it provides us the excuse to do whatever we please, but such rationalizations cheapen us and endanger us. It is just making excuses so we can continue to get away with bad behavior or save a few bucks.

If you can't tell the argument that we can't impact the world really bugs me. I can deal with the argument that we don't know exactly what we are doing to the world and that we don't have good alternatives, but that man can't harm the Earth? Maybe after a billion years no, but our effects will be felt for hundreds or thousands of years. And that is something to sneeze about.

[alexey]

You still don't get it. YES.

The past two hurricane seasons are completely unrelated to "global climate change"

You are vastly overestimating the effects of global climate change especially when any changes are not occurring as drastically as we're being lead to believe. There are many things that make any effects of GCC negligible as they are simply more powerful or overwhelming than GCC. El Nino and La Nina episodes are one of those things.

I would have no issues with you writing "negligible". You wrote "absolutely nothing to do with it".

Those words mean different things. Being on the same page about the meaning of words is what allows people to engage in a meaningful communication. Looks like you and I are not destined to engage in that.

[PeterMP]

1. Can you explain how the different areas of the Earth absorb or reflect the sun's energy, based on location, type of topography (sand, forest, jungle, grasslands, lakes, rivers, oceans, etc) and how they process this energy?

How many pages do you want me to type?

Though, I'm not sure how this is relevant to the topic of CHANGING climate other than directly related to human land use affect issues (i.e. independent of man there is no evidence on a global average scale there different things have changed.)

2. Can you explain how cloud cover may or may not affect the absorption or refection of this energy and what affect that has on the ground temperatures?

Clouds have different affects based on different variables. Somewhat simplisitcally during the day they reflect energy back into the space decreasing, but during the night they reflect heat coming up from the Earth that would escape back into space. Most studies conclude they have close to a net zero affect. Again, I don't see why these are really relevant (i.e. there is no evidence that clouds have changed substantially over the last 100 years).

3. While it is very nice that the Earth is cooler than the sun, what does this really have to do with radiation into space? Satellites that orbit above the earth constantly radiate into 4 deg K 'deep space' on the non-sun visible side. If these small objects can radiate to that low temperature, please explain why the Earth does not.

Because the Earth has more things that absorb, transmit, and hold heat better than satellites.

4. CO2 is a natural by-product of the earth's air-breathing animals. CO2 is a necessary input into the Earth's vegetation/trees etc. If we cut back on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, don't we risk depleting the Earth's vegetation and tree supply? Also, what is the largest supplier of CO2 into the Earth's atmosphere? Volcanic activity, which comes from, (wait for it, ... almost there, keep scratching your head...) Taa-Daa, the Earth? So, I'm sure that you wouldn't want to argue with Mother Earth, would you????

Not really. Historically CO2 has been lower than it is now for several centuries or even more. We aren't talking about eliminating CO2 levels only going back to something closer to pre-industrial times. Plants and trees grew just fine at pre-industrial levels.

Mother Earth doesn't agree or think and at various times has "done" things that ended up killing large numbers of living things. Just because "Mother Earth" has done (or does it) doesn't make it right.

And you are wrong. We produce more CO2 than volcanoes, and it isn't even close.

5. So, a basic Thermo-Dynamic question, kind of like the ones posed in any first year science class. Yes, if you put energy into a system and don't allow it to expend that energy, it will heat up. Congrats, you win there (or maybe not). Well, I'll give it to you when you define the boundaries of the system (in this case, the Earth) and show how the energy coming into that boundary exceeds the energy coming out of that boundary. You'll of course need to provide numbers with regards to both sides of these boundaries, as well as the rate of absorption/rejection, differentials of the different boundary layers, and if the heating/cooling are constant (if not, we need the equations showing how these are affected by time, places in orbit, atmospheric thickness, etc).

We measure in coming and out going radiation from the Earth using satelistes and have for a while now. The data shows that the Earth should even be warming faster than it is. This was part of the "scandal" of the climate gate where in one e-mail one scientist pondered about where the "missing" heat was. Of course, this issue was already in the peer reviewed literature and other sources.

The heat is going to other process, like changing ocean climates that the models aren't capturing correctly.

---------- Post added January-2nd-2011 at 08:57 AM ----------

I'm not overly concerned with co2 and believe our focus needs to be on other emissions ,but by encouraging investment and research into cleaner energy sources,as well as streamlining the permitting to accomplish that.

The issue at question is not just the limits,but the manner of reaching them.

The Texas vs EPA bs is a example where methodology and definitions of point of source conflicts with common sense.(flex permitting accomplishes the goal)

If the goal is to actually reduce total emissions that is,otherwise you have situations like the cleanup of the gulf spill where technology was not used because of specific limits on discharges.

What emissions? By how much? Bu what mechanism?

All emissions are not the same.

[Larry]

See, there you go again, trying to summarize what I said but not getting it. I said that humans do pollute the environment in some areas, BUT that doesn't mean that MMGW is fact.

Thanks, you just proved my point in every thread regarding AGW, period!!! Thanks. If this isn't a science that can be proved, than we shouldn't be making full scale changes to how we live, should we????

Nice, did you google all of those 'facts' or were they just running around in your head?

Unfortunately, you sound like a 9th grade science kid who just learned a few things about how the Earth's environment works and simply regurgitates them back without any understanding of how the real science works.

1. Can you explain how the different areas of the Earth absorb or reflect the sun's energy, based on location, type of topography (sand, forest, jungle, grasslands, lakes, rivers, oceans, etc) and how they process this energy?

2. Can you explain how cloud cover may or may not affect the absorption or refection of this energy and what affect that has on the ground temperatures?

3. While it is very nice that the Earth is cooler than the sun, what does this really have to do with radiation into space? Satellites that orbit above the earth constantly radiate into 4 deg K 'deep space' on the non-sun visible side. If these small objects can radiate to that low temperature, please explain why the Earth does not.

4. CO2 is a natural by-product of the earth's air-breathing animals. CO2 is a necessary input into the Earth's vegetation/trees etc. If we cut back on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, don't we risk depleting the Earth's vegetation and tree supply? Also, what is the largest supplier of CO2 into the Earth's atmosphere? Volcanic activity, which comes from, (wait for it, ... almost there, keep scratching your head...) Taa-Daa, the Earth? So, I'm sure that you wouldn't want to argue with Mother Earth, would you????

5. So, a basic Thermo-Dynamic question, kind of like the ones posed in any first year science class. Yes, if you put energy into a system and don't allow it to expend that energy, it will heat up. Congrats, you win there (or maybe not). Well, I'll give it to you when you define the boundaries of the system (in this case, the Earth) and show how the energy coming into that boundary exceeds the energy coming out of that boundary. You'll of course need to provide numbers with regards to both sides of these boundaries, as well as the rate of absorption/rejection, differentials of the different boundary layers, and if the heating/cooling are constant (if not, we need the equations showing how these are affected by time, places in orbit, atmospheric thickness, etc).

Thanks, I look forward to the reply.

Happy New Year.

Wow. Lots of interwoven themes, here.

The various themes seem to be rather stirred together, here. So rather than try to go line-by-line, multi-quote, and all that, I'm going to try to separate the themes and respond to them.

First, regarding your claim that I'm mis-representing you.

Funny, I responded to your post, which read:

There is no one who says that humans don't pollute. As you said, it is obvious.

This is VERY different that the AGW folks who say that humans affect the overall world environment and how it effects the entire planet.

Yes, there are things that humans could do to lessen pollution and that would be great. On the other hand, there are NO definitive experiments to show that man causes the earth to warm, cool, neither, or both. That is the big difference. Don't believe me, well look at temps during summer vs winter. See that big yellow thing in the sky? Since noone can predict those effects or take them out of the equations, then the models and predictions will always be biased, period.

Funny, that post sure looks to me like you're claiming that you have a problem with the concept that Humanity is capable of altering the Earth's environment, ever. And supporting that claim that the fact that the sun exists proves it.

Now, if you're willing to drop the bombastic declarations of fantasy, and retreat to a fallback position, then I'll be happy to follow you there. And it seems that you are.

----------

Which brings me to your second theme, the personal attacks.

Don't like people pointing out ninth grade science to you? Don't make bombastic declarations that can't stand up to ninth grade science.

Want to keep making bombastic declarations of obvious idiocy? Get used to people making fun of it, when you do.

----------

Now, as to your questions:

My first observation is that if your point is to return to the typical denier's tactic of "Well, science doesn't know everything, therefore it should be completely ignored", then I'll freely admit that there are bunches of things I don't know about this subject.

[indent[(I'll point out that I'm quite certain that Peter knows bunches more than I do, and that I'm quite certain that there are bunches of things that he doesn't know, either. And that there always will be. I, however, do not then take the fact that he doesn't know everything, to conclude that therefore, my opinion on the subject is worth as much as his is.) [/indent]

But I fail to see what that has to do with anything. Please, accept herewith my free and open admission that I don't know everything. And explain to us how we get from there to "therefore, man should continue dumping over a million tons of chemical waste products a day into the atmosphere, and just assume that it won't hurt anything." Or to "therefore, every statement made by those specialists who, while they don't know everything, know a boatload more than I do, should be disregarded outright."

Analogy: I remember back when NAFTA was proposed. I recall all kinds of dire predictions about the devastating effect it would have on the US economy. Claims of communism.

But then I also recall reading that at the time,

every single (living) winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics

agreed that NAFTA was a good idea.

I recall all of the jokes. About how Economics wasn't a "real" science. ("If you lined up all the economists in the world, they'd point in different directions.") How they couldn't "prove" anything.

Me, I was stunned that that many economists could agree on

anything

. I didn't think they could agree that a dollar bill was the same as four quarters.

My opinion was simple from that point forward. When

that many

experts on a subject, people who might all be idiots, but they know more than me, agree on something, then well, maybe that's not

proof

, but it's the smart way to bet.

(It also helps if what they're suggesting makes sense, at the gut level. And I'll point out that, at the gut level, the statement "dumping a million tons of waste chemicals into the environment every day, while simultaneously getting rid of nature's mechanisms for dealing with that chemical, and keeping it up for decades, maybe centuries, will eventually add up to change things", is a statement that makes a whole lot more gut-level sense than "free trade between two countries always helps both countries.")

----------

So, again. If the point of your questions is to demonstrate that we will eventually reach a point where I can't answer them, then please, consider that point to be conceded in advance.

However, some of your questions, I just feel, cry out for attention.

While it is very nice that the Earth is cooler than the sun, what does this really have to do with radiation into space? Satellites that orbit above the earth constantly radiate into 4 deg K 'deep space' on the non-sun visible side. If these small objects can radiate to that low temperature, please explain why the Earth does not.

First, I'll observe that if you're going to attack people for reciting ninth grade science to you, then you should attempt to avoid asking questions which loudly broadcast your ignorance of ninth grade science.

I'll even observe that my post actually explained that matter to you:

The Earth is cooler than the sun, therefore the Earth radiates a different "color" of light into space, than the "color" of light which the Sun delivers to the Earth.

But then I'd move on to actually responding to the question.

I was going to point you at the Wiki page that deals with the subject. But frankly, that page is far more technical than what I think your question calls for.

All objects constantly radiate energy. The "color" of energy radiated is a function of the body's temperature. Warmer bodies not only emit more photons, but the photons are of a higher energy.

This is why, when objects are heated, they eventually begin to glow. At first, they glow a dull red, because the only (visible) light they can emit is red light. If the object is heated further, then it will glow brighter, and of brighter colors.

This process, however, does not occur only in the visible light. All objects emit thermal radiation, it's just that cooler objects emit "colors" of light we can't see.

(That's why it's important that the Earth is cooler than the sun. It means that the Earth emits different colors than the sun does.)

And, y'see, that's important, because CO2 lets through the colors of light that are coming in to the Earth, but it absorbs the colors that the Earth is trying to get rid of.

This is called "the greenhouse effect", because it's the way greenhouses work. Incoming sunshine passes right through glass as though it isn't there, and warms the plants inside the greenhouse. The plants, in turn, radiate energy back, but glass doesn't let that color through. The glass lets energy in without hindrance, but it hinders energy leaving. Therefore, greenhouses are warmer on the inside.

Some other observations about the statements contained in your questions:

This process of bodies radiating energy occurs constantly, and it occurs on all surfaces. The Earth (and your satellites) radiates energy into space on all sides, day and night. (In fact, it emits slightly

more

energy on the day side than on the night side, because the day side is slightly warmer.) The day lit side of the Earth emits less energy than it absorbs (because the Earth is cooler than the sun), but it does emit.

The amount and "color" of energy emitted is solely a function of the

emitting

body's temperature. (Other factors are also involved, like the body's color, texture, and so forth. But the relationship holds for all materials: Increase the body's temperature, and the amount of energy, and the "color" of energy emitted, increases.) The temperature of other bodies in the universe are irrelevant. (Except insofar as those other bodies radiation affects the body in question.)

The temperature of space, or of the sun, has absolutely nothing to do with the color and amount of radiation the Earth does. It radiates the color it wants to radiate. The temperature of the Sun does not (directly) affect how the Earth radiates. (Although the Sun does warm the Earth, and warming the Earth does change it's radiation.)

The temperature of space does not affect how much energy the Earth (or your satellites) radiate into space. (It affects how much energy space radiates to Earth, but that amount is "virtually zero".)

----------

CO2 is a natural by-product of the earth's air-breathing animals. CO2 is a necessary input into the Earth's vegetation/trees etc. If we cut back on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, don't we risk depleting the Earth's vegetation and tree supply? Also, what is the largest supplier of CO2 into the Earth's atmosphere? Volcanic activity, which comes from, (wait for it, ... almost there, keep scratching your head...) Taa-Daa, the Earth? So, I'm sure that you wouldn't want to argue with Mother Earth, would you????

My first observation is that the creek out back behind my house contains Mercury in the water. You got any problems with me dumping more of it in there, since it's already in there, anyway?

So much for the "argument" (which, for some reason, nobody ever seems to actually come out and state. I wonder why.) that because something exists in nature, therefore artificially dumping huge quantities into the environment is OK.

My second observation is that I recommend you go and make this response to all of the people who are proposing that we immediately get rid of all naturally-occurring CO2 from the atmosphere.

However, what we're discussing in this thread isn't somebody's proposal to artificially lower CO2 levels, it's whether Man should continue artificially increasing it. While simultaneously getting rid of Nature's ability of getting rid of it.

We're discussing the desirability of Man creating a million tons a day of CO2 from, wait for it . . . , car exhaust!!!!!! Tadaa! I'm sure you that you're done trying to claim that car exhaust comes from Mother Earth, aren't you?