Analytic - 01 July 2010 07:29 AM
CC,
Few laymen even bother to read all the ‘stuff’ published on man-made global temperature increases.
When looking at the volume of published papers out there I image there are few scientists who have read ALL of them. Beside, I believe a layperson is limited to the abstracts and trying to comprehend the basic arguments being presented. It’s presumptuous to expect an unschooled lay person to pretend to read the full content with any comprehension. Which is why we depend on credible scientists to help with the interpretation.
It is important to recognize ones limitations.
Analytic - 01 July 2010 07:29 AM
Of the publications you so tediously listed, pick JUST your favorite and I will apply all my critical analytical skills to it as I would any supposedly reputable paper in a scientific journal.
Try to provide both your “favorite” and most recent.
Well, why not stick with post #47, before running off to something else.
——————————————————————-
Analytic - 01 July 2010 07:29 AM
The linkage between atmospheric CO2 and the so-called “green-house” effect is yet another mistake widely distributed and uncritically accepted.
Exactly what is “mistaken” about it when thousands of “tedious” publications report on different aspects of its measurable reality?
Analytic - 01 July 2010 07:29 AM
In a greenhouse, green plants would thrive on the CO2 within. IF it were elevated; but it isn’t. Green plants absorb CO2 and along with water, and fertilyzer, produce glucose to meet their own needs and grow profusely in a well-maintained greenhouse. Ambient CO2 levels are always low since the ability of green plants to absorb and use it is so efficient.
And your point is? Are you trying to say a gardener’s well controlled greenhouse is an apt analogy for how the intricacies of our atmosphere and biosphere functions?
As for the term “Greenhouse Gases,” that was coined because it imaged a simple concept in a way a more “accurate” term couldn’t have. And as with all analogies it has its limitations. (for example I hear tell, from experts, the Big Bang had nothing to do with a “Bang”)
—————————————————————-
Analytic - 01 July 2010 07:29 AM
So why is CO2 considered a “greenhouse gas”? Green plants don’t emit it, and use it very efficiently to grow and prosper. Similarly, green ocean plants exist in vast concentrations; they also absorb CO2. And fortuitously, these plants EMIT O2 (oxygen) on which almost all animals depend for life.
Oh yea, gotta love them ‘green ocean plants’ ~ too bad the levels of CO2 in our oceans are increasing and the lowering pH of the oceans is a recognized threat to their future well being.
Analytic - 01 July 2010 07:29 AM
Animals including humans - now approaching 7 BILLION strong - emit CO2 and methane gases.
You should know from your science reading that industrial produced CO2 has a different “signature” and that this “chemical signature” has been recorded and verified. The increasing CO2 is not fart based - it is fuel based.
Analytic - 01 July 2010 07:29 AM
Is the atmosphere a “greenhouse” making excess CO2, or can increases be explained by animal-emitted CO2 and methane?
I don’t know of anyone who’s suggested that the atmosphere “produces” CO2. I have seen suggestions that the human injection of CO2 - well above the natural background balance will continue doing its natural thing by absorbing and re-emitting heat as CO2 molecules are known to do. Thus we do have global warming.
Since, I’m not a scientist and sometimes must reduce these mussings to a level I can fully comprehend - mind if I ask you about Earth’s greatest temperature proxy - that is our cryosphere. Why is that melting everywhere? Oh and if you want to reply “Oh no, in Antarctica it’s increasing” might I ask you to look at the entire continent and to also discuss the meteorological conditions leading to those localized increases in snow fall?
