View Single Post
Old 05-22-2009, 10:18 PM   #27
SkinWalker's Avatar
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Thank you for the very pointed and specific counter-points to anthropogenic global warming. This is, at least, something that can be examined, if not empirically, then rationally.

Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
CO2 is not the leading greenhouse emission. In fact it plays a relatively small role. Historically CO2 increases follow an increase in temperature, as a greater number of living creatures tends to increase the CO2 levels.
CO2 is the 2nd most abundant greenhouse gas after water vapor. Water vapor has always been with us, however, and is largely a fixed system (the quantity of water on the planet doesn't increase/decrease in quantities that are noticeable; vapor is relative and, at times, ablative as well as insulating, meaning that cloud-cover can reflect light from the sun as well as insulate radiative heat from the earth (Lindzen 1991; Ramanathan and Coakley 1978). Water vapor is a feedback rather than a forcing agent when it comes to greenhouse gases, this is primarily due to its residence in the atmosphere (about 10 days) when compared with CO2 (about a decade).

Water vapor is far more effective at trapping radiative heat.
Not apparently so due to its albedo effect as well as its trapping effect. Further, since our planet's greenhouse effect is an important and depended upon system where water vapor plays a relatively static and important role in a feedback system, the introduction of the second most abundant greenhouse gas is actually forcing the system, resulting in increased insulation and, thus, increased surface temperatures (Lindzen 2007; Ramanathan and Coakley 1978).

Global mean temp has historically been higher without man's assistance. In fact when it was at it's highest temps the Earth was going through an explosive growth of life.
True. However, during this period, the Earth's orbit was slightly different, thus the cause of this natural global warming was astronomical and is not occurring today. Moreover, this "growth period" was just following the Pleistocene and the sudden rise in water levels due to meltwater following the last glacial maximum and a return to warmth from sub-freezing temperatures in the northern hemisphere where these "historically higher" temperatures occurred. In addition, this effect was only in the summer (NOAA 2008).

Correlation does not imply causality.
Correlations do not imply causations, but strong correlations cannot be (and should not be) ignored. The correlation of CO2 increase to temperature increase is not casual based on the long-term trend associated with it. In addition, its demonstrated through empirical data that CO2, the second most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, results in radiative forcing (Lindzen 2007) where water vapor, the most abundant, does not. It adjusts relative humidity constantly.

And actually, we are pumping less pollutants into the atmosphere than in many phases of our civilization.
What are the data for this? Or is it simply a confidence statement?

Many of the models of global warming tend to ignore external causes. For example volcanic activity, which pumps as much CO2 into the air as every car running constantly for a year
Every study I've read so far includes this in the models from which data is derived. Indeed, the effects of volcanic activity include other aerosols than CO2 and it's been demonstrated that volcanic activity actually has a cooling effect (Soden et al 2002). Also, volcanic contributions to the atmosphere is on a decline (Meehl et al 2004).

Solar activity, which has already shown that it has a more dramatic effect on our temperatures.
Shown how and where? The sun always shines. We have an existing system to which new contributors are forcing increases. Why would mentioning solar activity be of consequence?

And the biggest problem with warming is that it makes money. You don't debunk what gets you the grants.
This is rhetoric and not a reasoned or logical argument. It commits the fallacies of assuming that science has no other research potential beyond climate research; that climate researchers wouldn't be motivated to be the first to demonstrate a new the alternative hypothesis; etc. I see no reason to bother with entertaining such politically motivated and undereducated poppycock.


Lindzen, Richard S. (2007) Taking Greenhouse Warming Seriously. Energy & Environment, 18(7/8), 937-950

Lindzen, Richard S. (1991). Review of: Climate change, the IPCC Scientific Assessment. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 117, 651-652.

Meehl, G.A., et al (2004). "Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate". Journal of Climate 17: 3721-3727.

NOAA (2008). The Mid-Holocene "Warm Period." National Climate Data Center, Found online at:

Ramanathan, V. and J. A. Coakley, Jr. (1978). Climate Modeling through Radiative-Convective Models. Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics, 16: 465-490.

Soden, Brian J., et al (2002) Global cooling after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo: A test of climate feedback by water vapor. Science, 296(5568), 727-730.

A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,