The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Does our planet actually warm-up of CO2 in the atmosphere?  (Read 1959 times)

Offline AntonSynytsia

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
After some research on global warming, I got a thought. What if carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doesn't form greenhouse at all or perhaps the greenhouse it forms isn't enough to trap an excessive amount of sunlight to warm up the Earth.

We are trying to decrease the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not actually knowing that the particular source of global warming.

Heat from the fireplace is the thermal energy that keeps a house warm. Heat from the Sun is the thermal energy that makes the Earth warm. Consider the cars and the factories. Aren't they emitting heat too? Isn't the heat from the man made machines the actual source that makes the troposphere of the Earth's atmosphere warmer than usual?

I'm not saying that we should stop trying to reduce carbon dioxide emissions because look at China... Haze is all over the place and their government tries to convince their civilians that the haze is good their health. What I mean is that global warming is the controlled operation. We can simply regulate it by turning down the use of our 'heaters'. We don't have to worry much about the Earth becoming overheated.

Any thoughts, corrections?


 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4714
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
The correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature is clear, but if you look at ice core data (the only historical record that is unequivocal and not constructed from a host of presumed proxies) you see that the temperature curve leads the CO2 curve.

Now in my world, if A happens before B, B cannot be the cause of A. 

The principal greenhouse gas is universally accepted to be water. The problem is that the behavior of water in the atmosphere is extremely complex and difficult to model, and its concentration is extremely variable in space, time and state, so it is ignored or assigned some arbitrary value in "climate models". The assigned value is whatever fits with the hypothesis that CO2 is the driving component, so the myth is selfperpetuating even though the facts contradict the model. 

Here's an analogy. There is an absolute correlation between the light going on and you pressing the switch. So I state that the light is what makes you press the switch, and I ignore all the complicated stuff about electricity generation and so forth because I don't understand it. The correlation is absolute: before Man invented the electric light, nobody pressed switches, so switchpressing is the result of human action in inventing the light bulb. All is well in my world of selfdelusion until Joe Bloggs points out that the light comes out of the bulb a few microseconds after you press the switch. But I have built up such a big industry of people publishing research papers with increasingly complex models of light-driven switchpressing (LDSP), that the majority excoriate Bloggs as a switchpressing (SP) denier, perversely swimming against the holy consensus, and after all what is a few microseconds in geological time? The answer, my friend, is that "after" is the most important word in the scientific determination of causality.       
« Last Edit: 13/01/2014 00:54:40 by alancalverd »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length