Global warming???

[Rhode Island]

If we are talking about climate change (global warming) then CO2 emissions (esp. man made) are rather insignificant when compared to water vapor.

To be fair, something can be low in concentration, yet still significant.

[MTRookie76]

Apparently some of those scientists opposed to each others views have come to a meeting of the minds.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35506750/ns/us_news-environment/

Pretty sure if that happens it will have a negative effect on the Bobwhite populations along coastal areas. See this is upland related.

[ANF grousin]

If the culprit is carbon emissions, then why with all the treaties are the major pollutors still allowed to keep on spewing their emissions in to sky, but will then be allowed to buy "carbon" credits from other countries.  So they will still allow for pollution, but just distribute our wealth to a 3rd world country.  Seems that this is all about UN wealth distribution.

[rprovines]

So they will still allow for pollution, but just distribute our wealth to a 3rd world country.  Seems that this is all about UN wealth distribution.

Yeah, there is that little inconvenient truth, too. Hmmm, what to do to get the world behind this effort.

[Rick T]

If we are talking about climate change (global warming) then CO2 emissions (esp. man made) are rather insignificant when compared to water vapor.

To be fair, something can be low in concentration, yet still significant.

Could be, but I find it highly unlikely when H2O vapor accounts for 95% of greenhouse gases (94.999% natural, 0.001% man made) and CO2 accounts for 3.618% (3.502% natural, 0.117% man made).

[PartridgeCartridge]

If we are talking about climate change (global warming) then CO2 emissions (esp. man made) are rather insignificant when compared to water vapor.

To be fair, something can be low in concentration, yet still significant.

Could be, but I find it highly unlikely when H2O vapor accounts for 95% of greenhouse gases (94.999% natural, 0.001% man made) and CO2 accounts for 3.618% (3.502% natural, 0.117% man made).

Correct, and scientifically speaking this is known as the Martini Law. Just a fraction of a % of vermouth has a huge difference in the end result.

Which brings me to PC's Global Warming Law. If you have a few martini's before you start to ponder the thought of species extinction and being boiled alive by the sun, you generally won't give a rat's asss about the subject.

[Rhode Island]

. . . 0.117% man made.

and rising . . .  :'>

You never answered my question though.  No negative consequences associated with changing the Earth's Carbon Cycle?

RI

[gungho]

and the retreat continues

Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels

[Peterson]

this thread makes baby jesus cry.

[Ben Hong]

this thread makes baby jesus cry.

+1.

[rprovines]

this thread makes baby jesus cry.

Do you have proof of that? Or is it just more conjecture? And, are you speaking of Jesus of Nazareth? Or of a child born just north of the Rio Grande river early one morning? You have to be specific unless you're a climatologist. In weather it's always best estimation.

[Rick T]

. . . 0.117% man made.

and rising . . .  :'>

You never answered my question though.  No negative consequences associated with changing the Earth's Carbon Cycle?

RI

....with no significant rise in global temps in the last 15 years. :'>

Your question was very broad so I narrowed it to the topic at hand, global warming.  My answer hasn't changed.  It seems to be insignificant.

[gungho]

this thread makes baby jesus cry.

+1.

But ya'll are drawn to it like flies to honey.

you hate it but can't stay away

Now as for me and as you probably remember, Glo-Bull warming is my favorite subject in the world.  I would rather talk about it than eat, especially given recent developments.  

But note:  I did not bring it up.  

[Rhode Island]

Your question was very broad so I narrowed it to the topic at hand, global warming.  

So if you were to think more broadly, what would your answer be?

[Rick T]

Everything has consequences both positive and negative.  Are the benefits of using fossil fuels greater than risks?  Its all relative and that is where the rub is.  For every positive you or I can name we can come up with a negative.  When viewed as a whole, the side of the fence I am on says the positive outweighs the negative.  I assume (a bad thing to do), your side of the fence sees things differently and thats OK, that is the fuel of science.