Al Gore's teacher from Harvard who supposedly taught him about global warming denies that CO2 could have such an effect.

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html
This is an article written by the founder of the weather channel. He's a Ph.D, and he's in no way not creditable. He denies the greenhouse effect. One of the co-founders of Greenpeace doesn't believe in global warming. In fact, the whole "no one denies it" is a myth.

To be honest, i am sick and tired of "No credible scientist.....bla bla bla..." Its bull shit. What you think scientists believe is what the media reports, specifically "Skeptics Magazine". Does any one person know every single scientist in the world? Their every field of study? No, of course not... so how can anyone say with legitimacy "99.9 percent of the scientific community....bla bla bla" ,"Almost all scientists believe.... bla bla bla". And when questioned, the answer will be...."I heard it from...." or "I saw it from....". so please, people... don't defend your theory by saying.."All of these scientists...." Use evidence please, it makes you look slightly more dignified.

*clap* Awesome run-through, loved it, precise and made perfect sense, GJ!

Yeah because Skeptic's Magazine is so mainstream? I can't tell you how many times I've seen their controversial articles mentioned on CNN/Fox/MSNBC!
...never

You can't be serious midget.

If I understand what midget was saying hes right. As for the Skeptics magazine, I don't know. Media stories are speculation, they sell you a story not information. For example the speculation as temperature rises worse and more frequent storms, hurricanes, tornadoes would occur. Untrue. The insane controversy and speculation is what sells and is more interesting. Have you visited "The onion" the fake news website? It just proves border line or complete fiction is more exciting to the average person.

You say don't believe what you see in the media, and yet you're quoting the media when saying that global warming isn't under human control. You also say "much" and use some percentages, but you never really give sound figures. At this point, I'm inclined to be interested in your proposition, but I'm very skeptical of what you claim. And lol @ that link about Al Gore's teacher. Oil prices are high because investors in future markets are greedy. Supply is more than adequate at present levels of use, but some suits decided that it would be great to make some money by skyrocketing the price of a barrel of oil.

Okay, but let's forget about global warming for a minute. There are a whole host of other reasons why using fossil fuels are disgusting. I'll pick one reason out of thin air - smog. I live in an area with a lot of heavy truck traffic, and the air around here is disgusting. After I've been here a few weeks during the summer, I honestly don't feel as healthy. I never really noticed it before because I've always lived here, but when I moved off to college away from heavy traffic, I noticed that the air was a lot cleaner and that I felt a lot better. So yes, there are more reasons to switch to cleaner fuels than just to curb global warming. Still, I don't feel that you proved that CO2 is just a side effect of global warming. It could be both a cause and a side effect, but I think for your sake you'd prefer just sticking with the "side effect" argument. Of course if it's both, then the problem is just going to compound itself beyond what we're capable of maintaining, but that's not to say that we don't have a very large impact on it.

So... yet another global warming is a scam thing.

If you look at the evidence you supplied on the first page, none of it seems to hold much rational weight, I personally disregard all comments that deal with how dumb or power hungry certain people are, because you can't judge a fact based on the person presenting it, you have to judge a fact based on research and evidence.

First point I'd make is that there is no theoretical or rational evidence that proves CO2 comes out of water. We know that there is a large amount of air trapped on the surface of the ocean, and that a warmer ocean lets air in to the atmosphere. But, with my experience in chemistry, I have never seen any type of evidence that a gas bonded in to a state of inertia, like CO2 would be able to be held in a solution largely made up of water and sodium chloride. Considering that, I would say that the relationship between heat and CO2 hasn't been proven to a satisfactory degree, either way.

Second point, whenever chance favors what Al Gore is saying, you attribute it to just that, chance. Both of your "history lessons" could be countered in exactly that manner, since you take something that could be attributed to chance, and then use it to support your own theory.

In regards to the weather balloon experiment, the third point is that CO2 could not possibly make up 1% of greenhouse gases, because it is an integral part of air, and makes up over 20% of our atmosphere. (Last I checked, feel free to find the real number) The next point to this would be that saying water makes up 95% of greenhouse gases has absolutely no scientific backing, and you do not cite any resources to validate this claim. Since there is a limited amount of gaseous water that can be stored in air without becoming a cloud, this point seems to be quite suspect. An additional point is that the greenhouse effect does not say the atmosphere would rise in temperature before the surface, in fact, if you research it, the claim is that CO2 and other gases deflect infrared heat coming off the earth's surface, so that it gets absorbed by the earth, and the overall amount of heat leaving the earth to go to space is lowered. So yes, you have perhaps disproved a claim that was never made.

That's all for now, I have to go eat dinner.

Uh.. here's one source, and another, oh and how 'bout this? CO2, like oxygen, mixes in with the ocean, it does not have to become part of the water itself.. You must not have learned much from your chemistry class.

CO2 doesn't make up 20% of our atmosphere. It's common knowledge that about 70% is nitrogen and 20% is oxygen. 100-70-20=10, meaning CO2 makes up less than <10%.
About dissolved gases in the ocean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co2#In_the_oceans

Really sorry about the way I worded that, but the idea was that although it is possible to get gas molecules in to water, the actual chemical process is just like when you put air in to water, meaning that there is a limited amount of space available for CO2 or air to go in to the water. Sure, the space will get smaller if the heat of the world increases, meaning that the air stored in the water will get released, but the fact remains that all the ocean is is a buffer system.

Now... why you would cite those sources is beyond me, seeing as they all acknowledge that CO2 is the biggest contributor to global warming, and that our overproduction of the gas is having major negative effects on the planet. That's the kind of source I would cite in rebuttal to the statements made by the OP.

EDIT

Forgot to mention, one source said that the majority of the carbon would stay in the ocean for 500 years, which contradicts the idea of heating it to release carbon, and another said that most of the carbon in the ocean was in the form of carbonic acid, which does not get evaporated from water by an increase in heat.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jun 17 2008, 2:46 am by JaBoK.

Look at what i said. I said what you think scientists believe is what the media reports. i was just saying that skeptics magazine is a particularly scientific magazine. they have lots of things about astronomy and biology... i said nothing suggestive about skeptics magazine. *cough* over reaction

Reading it again, what you said just wasn't coherent. When you don't make a lot of sense in your post, or explain yourself clearly, you shouldn't be surprised if someone jumps on you for something you didn't mean.

Your exactly correct, but remember I'm not trying to sell you a story. In fact my motivation is based on the frustration it took me to find the truth behind global warming and it feels good to enlighten people. Don't believe me if you feel I'm being deceptive, but I'm not.

Nothing i mentioned was based on "dumb or power hungry" its based on documentaries I've watched, my teachers at school have taught me a lot about it, independent research, and the media.
Well thats just ridiculous the ocean contains carbon. Look up the ocean carbon cycle.
Well i guess everything occurs on chance. Therefore nothing is viable to be evidence to anything because its all chance. Chance doesn't support it, his graphs do. And I explained them already.

First of all never say to me "theres absolutely no scientific backing" and if you feel the need to say that, why don't you source me where it says that water vapor makes up only X amount of greenhouse gases. Besides that I'm talking about troposphere not atmosphere. As for the green house effect, the atmosphere should absorb the infrared heat and send the rest in all directions, not right back at the earth. So if the troposphere isn't heating up, it can't be the greenhouse effect.

Okay if you don't already know, the increase in temperature so far is positive. Tons of sites acknowledge CO2 as a problem to global warming, that doesn't mean anything.


No actually it doesn't. The majority of carbon may stay in water, but if you've ever swam across an ocean like me or falkoner you start to realize oceans are huge. As for carbonic acid, maybe it doesn't get evaporated but it can still release CO2.

Yea hes right i wasn't quite sure i was supporting you when trying to defend you.

dumbducky was kind enough to point us to the wikipedia article for CO2 in oceans. If you're too lazy to scroll up to find the link, it's right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co2#In_the_oceans

With that said, the article that wikipedia cites is located here: http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=17726

I essentially gathered from it that there is 50x as much CO2 in the oceans as in the atmosphere, but one figure that was thrown out was that it has absorbed one third of all human CO2 emissions, actually working to slow global warming down, which the article realizes, more or less, as scientific fact. However, the main point of the article is that higher levels of CO2 in oceans lead to high levels of acidity, which is incredibly harmful. It's almost 6 am here, so I'll skip any eloquence for this post, but the article seems to take the stance that global warming is the cause of increased CO2 emissions from the ocean because we've put too much CO2 into the atmosphere.

wow, quite the turn around.

I'd say thats true. In effort to reach equilibrium with sea to air its very possible the oceans gain more carbon. I've read about the acidity problem.

Well i found a good source for the whole water vapor-CO2 thing http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Also Dr. Wallace Broeker is a scientist who speaks against man made global warming.

Finally I should say that I keep forgetting to mention man made global warming is the swindle. Not the warming of earth itself. Which you guys reply saying "see the earths heating! which is baaaaaad!" No. Its not.

What else is there to address?

No scientific backing means that you haven't provided any, and I don't find the burned of proof to be on myself because I'm not making a claim. Anyways, I've gone and looked in to it for you, and the numbers (source) are 60% water and 20% CO2, far from the less then 1% and 95% that you supplied earlier without a source. The concept of greenhouse gas is that infrared heat that would normally bounce off the earth unimpeded is being impeded, and as such, more of it is being reflected back, to be absorbed. This means that more heat that would have been reflected is subject to entropy from gases, meaning that as a whole, the earth does get warmer. Here are a few more sources that support around a 60/20% theory. Source

Either way, consider a logical approach to this. Without the greenhouse effect, the earth would be freezing cold. With a natural greenhouse effect, comprising of mostly water vapor, the earth is able to maintain a balanced temperature equilibrium. If humans add allot of CO2 to the atmosphere, it may only be a small percentage of the total greenhouse effect, but it will cause a large temperature shift, meaning one or two degrees. Even if this is only 1 percent of the total greenhouse effect, consider the fact that the earth works on a delicate balance, and that shifting that balance causes problems even if the shift is minimal. As an analogy, consider having 8000 trillion gallons of hydrochloric acid dropped in to the ocean, but also 8000 trillion gallons of sodium hydroxide. Assuming they're spread evenly, nothing changes, we just get some more ocean salt. Now, assume that we add 0.001% to one of those numbers, oh, we only increased it by 0.001 percent, but we really just added 8 trillion gallons of acid to the ocean (I know that this actually wouldn't cause a large PH shift, seeing as we just added 16000 trillion gallons of water to the ocean as well, but the principle is the same). Of course this is an unrealistic example, but it is very similar to the argument that water vapor is such a big greenhouse gas that adding a small percent couldn't possibly harm us.

Here's a site that's got counterarguments for allot of the things skeptics will mention about global warming.
(site)

Well now your pissing me off. You are making a claim, that there is no evidence or "scientific backing" you didn't say PROVIDE scientific backing. I don't care what you MEANT, thats not what you wrote.

Wrong. Again. First of all i said that "95% of all green house gas is water vapor" which I sourced previously. Your source says "In a very rough approximation the following trace gases contribute to the greenhouse effect: 60% WV 20% CO2" So your saying its effect vs me saying how much there is. Second your source says its "A very rough approximation" and Wiki says up to 70% WV 9% CO2. Besides that your graphs haven't taken into consideration that clouds absorb a ton of heat, meaning that water vapors percentages are negligent. On top of that theres counter sources on the influence compared to your 60/20 source. Fail sauce.

Okay first of all its "a lot" not allot. So your right global warming is by man made cause. Lets enforce the Kyoto Protocol to reduce CO2 emissions by 30%, which by the way would undoubtedly cause a devastating affect on the U.S. economy. Meaning you could pay 20-50% more for everything from automobiles to zippers. The Kyoto protocol if enforced equally around the world would total human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by 0.0325%. Dr. S. Fred. Singer says " There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. "

This is total bullshit didn't you say the earth was a buffer? If this balance was so delicate we would have thrown it off course long ago. Your analogy fails.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Even with the earth acting as a buffer system, the balance is still delicate, since the buffer applies to water vapour, and stored CO2. It does not apply to actual temperatures. The point is that if the greenhouse thing is the only thing keeping the world from being at 0 degrees or less, then a small shift PERCENTAGE WISE in the overall greenhouse effect would have a noticeable shift in the temperature. For example, if the greenhouse effect rises the earth's temperature by 100 degrees (That's not the real number) then a 2% shift would raise the temperature 2 degrees, which is quite a bit. if the greenhouse effect was a negligible effect causing a small increase in heat, then a small percentage would be insignificant, but that's not the case.

Secondly, you seem to be deliberately taking the smallest possible vale for CO2 percentage, and the largest available one for water. The wikipedia does not say 9%, it says between 9 and 26 percent, a much different average in my book. That particular source also states that water can go from 37 to 70 percent. The few sources that give a value of 95% are sources that could be considered to carry a certain opinion on the subject. I'd provide this source here as evidence for a lower estimate then 95%.

"Current state-of-the-art climate models predict that increasing water vapor concentrations in warmer air will amplify the greenhouse effect created by anthropogenic greenhouse gases while maintaining nearly constant relative humidity." (source)

Were talking about man made global warming, and man made global warming is a very small increase. Natural global warming is undoubtedly a large effect, but man made isn't. So a small percentage to man made global warming is the case.
How about instead of making retarded statements you re read im saying "Wiki says up to 70% WV 9% CO2" and the point is that the amount and effect is controversial, so lets table this argument for now.

I respond to this later im going to bed.
"Current state-of-the-art climate models predict that increasing water vapor concentrations in warmer air will amplify the greenhouse effect created by anthropogenic greenhouse gases while maintaining nearly constant relative humidity."