|
Thadius -> RE: BBC: What happened to global warming? (10/11/2009 9:22:52 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sanity
Other than all the climate models being consistently wrong, and the news contained in this latest BBC article, etc?
quote:
<snip>
I've yet to see any data presented that disproves the basic tenets of that position,...
<snip>
One more time,
1) Increasing the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere allows that air to retain more heat.
2) CO2 levels have increased by 130 ppm since 1750
3) No other source for that increase exists but human activity.
Those are facts not in any dispute by anyone rational.
Your number 3 is not correct...
From the irrational USGS:
quote:
(emphasis mine)
Large, explosive volcanic eruptions inject water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), hydrogen chloride (HCl), hydrogen fluoride (HF) and ash (pulverized rock and pumice) into the stratosphere to heights of 10-20 miles above the Earth's surface. The most significant impacts from these injections come from the conversion of sulfur dioxide to sulfuric acid (H2SO4), which condenses rapidly in the stratosphere to form fine sulfate aerosols. The aerosols increase the reflection of radiation from the Sun back into space and thus cool the Earth's lower atmosphere or troposphere; however, they also absorb heat radiated up from the Earth, thereby warming the stratosphere. Several eruptions during the past century have caused a decline in the average temperature at the Earth's surface of up to half a degree (Fahrenheit scale) for periods of one to three years. The sulfate aerosols also promote complex chemical reactions on their surfaces that alter chlorine and nitrogen chemical species in the stratosphere. This effect, together with increased stratospheric chlorine levels from chlorofluorocarbon pollution, generates chlorine monoxide (ClO), which destroys ozone (O3). As the aerosols grow and coagulate, they settle down into the upper troposphere where they serve as nuclei for cirrus clouds and further modify the Earth's radiation balance. Most of the hydrogen chloride (HCl) and hydrogen fluoride (HF) are dissolved in water droplets in the eruption cloud and quickly fall to the ground as acid rain. The injected ash also falls rapidly from the stratosphere; most of it is removed within several days to a few weeks. Finally, explosive volcanic eruptions release the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and thus provide a deep source of carbon for biogeochemical cycles.
But to be more to the point, water vapor and methane seem to be better places to focus our efforts for controlling "greenhouse gases"; they are far more effective at trapping heat. Anyways, there are plenty of natural sources for the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.
[sarcasm] We could always turn the Middle-East and part of Asia into a glass factory with our nukes, this could potentially cut the world's population by at least 1/3, thereby cutting down on the human sources of CO2 and pollutants... Just sayin [/sarcasm]
Declaring absolutes on anything in this debate, is like declaring an absolute answer to how and when the Universe was formed. As soon as I see some sort of modeling that is even close to being accurate at a month, year, or 5 years out, I will start to take the projections a bit more seriously. Until then, it seems more like palm reading. If the modeling cannot accurately reflect reality, how can it be relied on as proof (I am refering to the AGW modeling used by the UN).
I am all for moving towards cleaner and more sustainable energy sources, for both the health (of mankind and the planet) and financial benefits that should be reaped by advances in technology.
I wish you well,
Thadius
|
|
|
|
