Comments on: Despite Gore's Nobel Climate Not Top Issue

Former VP In An Effective Advocate, But The American Public Focuses On More Iraq, Health Care

[cbs_oliver]

It is possible to discuss the various factors and the complications and misunderstandings of the impacts one at a time. There is however a lot of misinformation in circulation and it stays in circulation even after being debunked.

The real important question is why arn''t industry leaders concerned for themselves.

My view is that the answer to that question is not that global warming and resource depletion are not issues.

[cbs_oliver]

CO2 absorbs light at many wavelengths where the earth presently is emitting light (heat).

CO2 and also Methane have absorption areas of infrared radiation in some of the few remaining ''windows'' in which the earth can ''shine out'' so to speak and loose heat, because these windows in the spectrum are not already closed by water vapour''s thick blanket. And it does not take much of a CO2 concentration at all, to lead to a strong absorption in these areas.

CO2 is so good at absorbing heat radiation in its bands that even at the natural background concentration of 280 parts per billion of CO2, the atmosphere is practically already almost ''black'' in the centre of the CO2 absorption bands!

But the wings of the CO2 absorption bands are still letting light escape. More CO2 will close those windows too!

[abbe91]

CBS_Oliver,

What about the CO2 absorption spectrum, which is almost
totally saturated at the levels we know now (the water vapor absorption spectrum is not) ? And what about chemical measurements showing higher levels of CO2 in the past centuries ? If a few ppm CO2 can make a difference, a run away feedback, if any, should have occurred already ...

[cbs_oliver]

Posted by jowand at 09:24 AM : Oct 14, 2007: "Rising levels of CO2 have nothing to do with global warming. Methane affects the climate more than CO2 would if you acept your theory, eat more chicken."

On Earth, the major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36 to 70 percent of the greenhouse effect (not including clouds); carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9 to 26 percent; methane (CH4), which causes 4 to 9 percent; and ozone, which causes 3 to 7 percent. Some other naturally occurring gases contribute very small fractions of the greenhouse effect. The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 31 percent and 149 percent respectively above pre-industrial levels since 1750. These levels are considerably higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores. From less direct geological evidence it is believed that CO2 values this high were last attained 20 million years ago. Fossil fuel burning has produced about three-quarters of the increase in CO2 from human activity over the past 20 years. Most of the rest is due to land-use change, in particular deforestation.

(Fixed CBS engine mishandling of numbers.)

[abbe91]

"I have lost all respect for the nobel prize.
Posted by armandbeni at 09:52 AM : Oct 14, 2007"

Remember: this is the Nobel *Peace* prize. They gave it to Kissinger before. So, what''s surprising ?

[cbs_oliver]

Posted by jowand at 09:24 AM : Oct 14, 2007: "Rising levels of CO2 have nothing to do with global warming. Methane affects the climate more than CO2 would if you acept your theory, eat more chicken."

On Earth, the major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36%u201370% of the greenhouse effect (not including clouds); carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9%u201326%; methane (CH4), which causes 4%u20139%; and ozone, which causes 3%u20137%.[17][18] Some other naturally occurring gases contribute very small fractions of the greenhouse effect. The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 31% and 149% respectively above pre-industrial levels since 1750. These levels are considerably higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores. From less direct geological evidence it is believed that CO2 values this high were last attained 20 million years ago. Fossil fuel burning has produced about three-quarters of the increase in CO2 from human activity over the past 20 years. Most of the rest is due to land-use change, in particular deforestation.

[armandbeni]

I have lost all respect for the nobel prize. I''m surprised he didn''t win for inventing the internet, another claim he has made. He flys around in a private jet telling us we have to cut back on fuel consumption. He is an ***, who is keeping himself in the headlines by jumping on a bandwagon. He isn''t a scientist, just a has been who can''t stand not being in the limelight. The nobel prise used to be for scientists and other who have made huge contributions to the world. It has reduced itself to honoring self promoting *****.

[jowand]

whats best for a bunch of Rich Low Lifes who would sell us out in a heartbeat. Sieg Heil Bush!!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by MCVet at 08:16 AM : Oct 14, 2007

ZIG HELL mate. All of the leading Democrats are rich low lifes then by your definition. Harry Reid is the one selling us out.
If I could buy you for what your worth and sell you for what you think your worth I could be a rich low life too. ZIG HELL go polish your Iron Cross.

[jowand]

If we stop making CO2 so fast things may slow down.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by CBS_Oliver at 07:24 AM : Oct 14, 2007

Rising levels of CO2 have nothing to do with global warming. Methane affects the climate more than CO2 would if you acept your theory, eat more chicken.

[mcvet]

With the environmental constraints currently in place, the air is already much cleaner than it was in the ''''70s. I have spoken to environmental engineers who say that it will just take time for the measures already in place to have an effect.

Posted by notso9 at 04:08 AM : Oct 14, 2007
+ report abuse

They might have made a difference if the recomended improvements had been made when those were recomended. The problem is this nation went conservative when we least needed to and those improvements were NEVER made and in fact the orginal laws were reversed, instead opting for allowing polluters to make improvements on their own. Now we are faced with a real problem and you don''t have to be a scientist to know this... you need only to look out your door. Messing with Mother Nature is going to cost us and cost us big if we do not get leaders who are willing to make tough decisions based on what''s best for America and NOT whats best for a bunch of Rich Low Lifes who would sell us out in a heartbeat. Sieg Heil Bush!!