why are you taken man made glbal warming as a given?
Because the evidence available is unsurmountable.
henec this IS a chicken egg argument. YOU are stating that high tempreatures is a RESULT of excess C02 emissions, aer you not.
Its a bi-directional dynamic or proportionality. Yes, currently, CO2 emissions from human sources are increasing temperatures. This is also resulting to a multiplier effect which is increasing concentration of other greenhouse gases (namely H2O) and even releasing CO2 that were accumulated in glaciers.
is that is so then you are syaing that since one is the cause of the other, that one is the chicken which layed theegg, chicken being C02 and the egg being climate change.
High temperature will result to increased CO2 emissions. The problem here is when referring to tabloids, we're often told that somehow solar radiation changes. However, the behaviour of the sun is quite constant and if such change occurred, we'd be heavily affected.
therefore the way i see it, for your argument to stand, you need a DIRECT correlation that PROOVES high concentrations of C02, will LEAD to, CAUSE, the climate to heat up.
Refer to the vostok ice core date
here. Chapter 7 and 9 demonstrates that a strong positive correlation exists between CO2 and temperature. The ice core being isolated due to the Antarctic environment has made it possible to explore the climate well before the holocene.
hmm thats FUNNY, cuz when i read chapter 6 about previous climate change, they did NOT say greeh house effect was the cause of glbal warming....but perhaps you can find somewhere in the report THAT DOES state previous climate change was a result of the greenhouse effect.
Why would they need to? The greenhouse effect itself isn't hazardous. It actually protects us from UV radiation and allowed for biological evolution. Without the greenhouse, Earth's surface temperature would be around 30 degrees (Celsius) lower than now.
The problem isn't the greenhouse effect which will always produce a warming effect, but rather reinforcement due to primarily human emissions (directl.
not that i dont beleive you man, but i woudl like to see a scientific journal/report that studies and SHOWS WHY we should not take this into consideration.
IPCC is aimed at curbing the anthropogenic component of global warming. Directly reducing H20 vapour is far more difficult especially
hence that would be a chicken and egg discussion, which came 1st high leves of H20 or C02 concentrations.
Once again, bi-directional. The excess CO2 is increases T which in return increase CO2 due to de-glaciation.
remember this discussion is about what is the CUASE of global warming, not waht are the effects, THE CAUSE.
I'll just use fLow's explainable and supplement it:
The cause of global warming is the sun. It has been for thousands of years.
The cause of the greenhouse effect is the sun. Rather global warming - the increase in temperature in recent times - is primarily due to excess CO2 emissions.
what i woudl like to see, rather than just an anlysis of temp and C02, is a studdy on the ACTUAL greenhouse effect.
CO2 is used, because unlike, H2O, its a direct result of emissions (fossil fuels, carbon uptake from non-human sources). In contrast, H20 is determined by temperature, i.e. > warm air, > H20 accumulation. For that reason CO2 emissions are isolated.
what effect does increase greenhouse have on absorbation, reflection and insulating of the ozone layer?
The greenhouse effect decreases the Albedo to .39 substantially, which translates to higher temperatures.
WHICH variable can cause the biggest effect on absorbtion and reflection rate?
The variable would be the albedo which is a measurement of Earth's luminosity. Everything from clouds, land, water, even urban areas reduces the albedo. However, the biggest contributor would be the greenhouse effect.
why not do this, that way we can have exact number CORELATING high levels of greenhouse with changes in the actual greenhouse effect.
I am puzzled. H20 vapour is a positive feedback system vs. T, which is correlated with CO2. If you want me to providie
i think you find THAT is the point. if the greenhouse effect has NEVER caused such a drastic climate change, then why should i believe that the current is a direct reult of that.
It has produced a drastic change. Small changes in albedo has led to huge changes in glaciation.
not only that, but IF it is form greenhouse gases, then why not study the effects of ALL the gases. just becuase w ecan not control this, is NOT a reason to study it. like you said they are proprtional to each other, henec how can you gurantee,with peer review of course, that really its high H20 leading to C02.
There are studies. Take a look around. IPCC objective is to implement controls on human activities. I can't seem to access my studies, but here's an excerpt from Natgeo w.r.t. water vapour:
[...]
[N]ew study's results suggest that large-scale weather patterns are only a minor influence on the temperature increase, said lead researcher Rolf Philipona of the World Radiation Center in Davos Dorf, Switzerland.
"It is an experiment that clearly shows which factors are driving the higher temperatures. It is not the clouds, not the sun, not the aerosols. It is the increased greenhouse gases and the strong water vapor impact," Philipona said.
[...]
An increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, from car exhaust, industrial emissions, and other sources, has been observed throughout the planet since about 1960, Philipona said.
Linkor LIKE IN THE PAST, the increased levels of C02 are not a Natural result of the earth warming.
Increased level of CO2 were due to non-anthropogenic sources. To extrapolate from the past in such a manner is not possible because the fossil fuel age did not exist.
