Comments on: Bill O’Reilly on Cap and Trade, Global Warming, and Goldman Sachs http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/07/21/bill-oreilly-on-cap-and-trade-global-warming-and-goldman-sachs/ Patriotism that loves our country, our land, and our planet Wed, 23 May 2012 01:08:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Joseph http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/07/21/bill-oreilly-on-cap-and-trade-global-warming-and-goldman-sachs/comment-page-1/#comment-62113 Joseph Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:48:09 +0000 http://redgreenandblue.org/?p=3408#comment-62113 Barbara, much of that water vapour is located in clouds that actually reflect sunlight back into space. The greenhouse effect relies on clear gases that let in sunlight and lock in thermal energy from the ground, hence why a greenhouse is made of glass. CO2 does both those things as it transmits visible light but absorbs infrared, which is why it is a greenhouse gas and why Venus (the second closest planet to the sun) with its atmosphere (96.5% CO2) is 270% hotter than Mercury (the closest planet to the sun). Water vapour when not condensed into clouds does function like a greenhouse gas as well though. A lot of gases are involved, and our climate system is complex enough that the heat energy that is being retained isn't just staying in one place. This is why climate change is a more useful term than global warming. While it is warming in an overall average sense, the distribution is potentially highly unequal, with some places getting much hotter and others getting colder due to any number of climate dynamics. Looking at one spot and saying it's not getting warmer here isn't sufficient to disprove this. Barbara, much of that water vapour is located in clouds that actually reflect sunlight back into space. The greenhouse effect relies on clear gases that let in sunlight and lock in thermal energy from the ground, hence why a greenhouse is made of glass. CO2 does both those things as it transmits visible light but absorbs infrared, which is why it is a greenhouse gas and why Venus (the second closest planet to the sun) with its atmosphere (96.5% CO2) is 270% hotter than Mercury (the closest planet to the sun).

Water vapour when not condensed into clouds does function like a greenhouse gas as well though. A lot of gases are involved, and our climate system is complex enough that the heat energy that is being retained isn't just staying in one place. This is why climate change is a more useful term than global warming. While it is warming in an overall average sense, the distribution is potentially highly unequal, with some places getting much hotter and others getting colder due to any number of climate dynamics. Looking at one spot and saying it's not getting warmer here isn't sufficient to disprove this.

]]> By: Barbara Samardich http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/07/21/bill-oreilly-on-cap-and-trade-global-warming-and-goldman-sachs/comment-page-1/#comment-61849 Barbara Samardich Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:41:26 +0000 http://redgreenandblue.org/?p=3408#comment-61849 While I appreciate Mr. O'Reilly for bringing many important issues to the forefront, he is dead wrong about Global Warming. He has stated - like everyone else - that he coesn't want to discuss it any further. This I find to be counter-productive. How can any serious question be solved without rigorous debate? From what I read, there is very little proof of any Global Warming and even less proof that it could be caused by CO2. CO2 simply does not have to ability to retain massive amounts of heat reflecting back into our solar system. This is the only way that warming can occur and if it were not for a certain amount of greenhouse gases holding in some heat, we'd be a barren planet. Water vapor, which makes up 95% of the earth's so-called greenhouse effect, is what holds in heat. So maybe we should Cap and Trade water vapor. While I appreciate Mr. O'Reilly for bringing many important issues to the forefront, he is dead wrong about Global Warming. He has stated – like everyone else – that he coesn't want to discuss it any further. This I find to be counter-productive. How can any serious question be solved without rigorous debate? From what I read, there is very little proof of any Global Warming and even less proof that it could be caused by CO2. CO2 simply does not have to ability to retain massive amounts of heat reflecting back into our solar system. This is the only way that warming can occur and if it were not for a certain amount of greenhouse gases holding in some heat, we'd be a barren planet. Water vapor, which makes up 95% of the earth's so-called greenhouse effect, is what holds in heat. So maybe we should Cap and Trade water vapor.

]]>