RE: climate change (again)

RE: climate change (again) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

luckydawg -> RE: climate change (again) (12/16/2009 9:35:28 PM)
I thought I was being cheeky, not flinging feces, but I was making a serious point. And there is no glass cieling like in your test tube example, water vapor and gasses escape into space all the time, Ice and frozen gasses come in all the time(little meterorites). Its not a usefull model for anything relating to climate. The earth is not a closed system(a sealed tube). CO2 has many effects, not just one(trapping heat), it effects the growth of plants, and water vapor to name 2. Accelerating plant growth would also have an effect, water vapor could reflect or trap, depending on other variables. All of which effct other variables etect. Its an extremely complex system, wth variables we have no idea of how they work. Which is what make the destruction and supression of Data such a serious matter.

popeye1250 -> RE: climate change (again) (12/17/2009 12:01:17 AM)
I watched a scientist on t.v. say that (if) CO2 did block heat it would be a relatively easy process to get rid of the CO2 by using a series of balloons at differant elevations with a lightweight flexable exhaust hose about 2 feet in diameter attatched to them and that once it got to a certain height the CO2 would dissapate out into space, I think he said 80,000 feet. And, he said it wouldn't even have to be "permanent", evidently a few months would do the trick, bring us back to 1950's levels and all at a cost of less than $10 million dollars! Then he said that that just makes too much sense and that alone would keep the govt from doing it unless he could convince them that it would cost $100 Billion dollars and create 2 million desk jobs. But, he didn't believe in "global warming" Lady E, and slavemike wants the U.S. to keep sending food to Somalians. Why? So they can double their population in ten years?

FirmhandKY -> RE: climate change (again) (12/17/2009 4:35:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen 1) Keeling made measurements of CO2 levels in the atmosphere over several decades that showed the levels increasing, year on year. His son now continues his work with the same results. 2a) CO2 acts as an insulator - it is a "greenhouse gas", preventing heat from the sun escaping the atmosphere; this can be easily demonstrated with a glass tube filled with CO2, a candle and a camera. 2b) Venus provides us with an example of greenhouse gas effects with an atmosphere made up of such gases that results in it being so hot that probes sent to land there last less than five minutes before being critically damaged by the high temperatures. Lady E ... do you find the International Journal of Modern Physics a reputable scientific journal? Do you believe that Physicists are scientists? FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS Abstract: The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientic foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are claried. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric green-house effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsied. Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World Scientic Publishing Company, http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb. Here is the full paper, in pdf format. Firm

Hillwilliam -> RE: climate change (again) (12/17/2009 6:59:30 AM)
There seems to be a bit of misconceptopn about how CO2 "blocks heat" I saw a post which said more or less, if it blocks heat, how does the heat get in. This is a valid question. The planet and atmosphere absorb photons from the sun thru about the entire spectrum. This light energy is converted to heat energy. At night, the heat is reradiated back out as Infra Red photons. In an ideal system, absorption during the day will exactly equal radiation at night and the temp stays equal. Clouds tend to reflect the heat back (this is why it is less likely to get REALLY cold on a cloudy night) but I digress a bit. CO2 in the upper atmosphere is transparent to most radiation but it reflects Infrared back to the surface. (I know, it is hard to think of something that is transparent as CO2 gas to visible light actually blocking and reflecting an invisible wavelength). This is how CO2 acts as an insulator. Ozone is a similar problem in that it is VERY reflective to UV radiation and sends it back out into space while letting the rest of the spectrum thru. Loss of ozone has already greatly increased skin cancer rates "down under" but the problem DOES seem to be geting better since the banning of CFC's.

vincentML -> RE: climate change (again) (12/17/2009 8:30:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam There seems to be a bit of misconceptopn about how CO2 "blocks heat" I saw a post which said more or less, if it blocks heat, how does the heat get in. This is a valid question. The planet and atmosphere absorb photons from the sun thru about the entire spectrum. This light energy is converted to heat energy. At night, the heat is reradiated back out as Infra Red photons. In an ideal system, absorption during the day will exactly equal radiation at night and the temp stays equal. Clouds tend to reflect the heat back (this is why it is less likely to get REALLY cold on a cloudy night) but I digress a bit. CO2 in the upper atmosphere is transparent to most radiation but it reflects Infrared back to the surface. (I know, it is hard to think of something that is transparent as CO2 gas to visible light actually blocking and reflecting an invisible wavelength). This is how CO2 acts as an insulator. Ozone is a similar problem in that it is VERY reflective to UV radiation and sends it back out into space while letting the rest of the spectrum thru. Loss of ozone has already greatly increased skin cancer rates "down under" but the problem DOES seem to be geting better since the banning of CFC's. A good explanation, William. It is true that light energy is absorbed before converted into infra red, correct? Infra red is sent back out not only at night but around the clock? Clouds, ice and ocean/lake surfaces reflect light as well back to space? Also, warm bodies such as the earth both reflect and radiate energy as light. That's why the earth can be seen in photos. Are we in agreement so far? I hope so. I have read and I do not have the wherewithal to argue the point that satellite measurements of incoming energy is greater than outgoing energy at the boundary of the troposphere. So called radiative forcing is positive. That is the "warming" evidence. At the same time there has been an increase of atmospheric CO2. This correlation is assumed by the AGW alarmists to indicate cause and effect. I have several questions related to the issue: Why is 1750 used as the base year for the measurements of radiative forcing and how the hell was RF measured in that year? How and why was the data "fixed" to cause the disappearance of the inconvenient Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age? Finally, why is it on this graph published by the IPCC of 400,000 years of climate cycles read in the Vostok ice borings that Warming always precedes CO2 accumulation? The blue line is temperature and the green line is CO2. The horizontal axis is read from right to left. Is it because CO2 is released from warming seas? Vincent

vincentML -> RE: climate change (again) (12/17/2009 8:55:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Abstract: The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientic foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are claried. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric green-house effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsied. Sheesh, Firm, thanks! Only 115 pages to wade through. I may have it digested in a month or so. LOL! One thing that troubles me from the abstract is I thought the second law (entropy, right?) only applied to closed systems, whereas Earth is an open system. Do I have that wrong? I do not understand this part. I will have to work on it. I do love this comment from the body of the paper, as little I was able to read at this time: "However, in general “scientific consensus" is not related whatsoever to scientific truth as countless examples in history have shown. “Consensus" is a political term, not a scientific term." Lovely. And ironic that a paper by a physicist challenges the alarmist climatologist most cherished scenario. But, Firm, the fix is in, I'm afraid. Vincent

FirmhandKY -> RE: climate change (again) (12/17/2009 2:55:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Sheesh, Firm, thanks! Only 115 pages to wade through. I may have it digested in a month or so. LOL! If you do actually try to read it for understanding, you'll likely be only one of two on these boards to do so, I'm afraid. But ... yanno ... it is a peer reviewed paper, in a major scientific journal ... we really don't really need to read it ... just take the author's word for it ... seems to have worked for a lot of people who believe in AGW, didn't it? [8D] quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML One thing that troubles me from the abstract is I thought the second law (entropy, right?) only applied to closed systems, whereas Earth is an open system. Do I have that wrong? I do not understand this part. I will have to work on it. ahhh ... is the universe a closed or an open system? Cyclic Big Bangs, or a Steady State heat death? We all wonder .....!!!! quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML I do love this comment from the body of the paper, as little I was able to read at this time: "However, in general “scientific consensus" is not related whatsoever to scientific truth as countless examples in history have shown. “Consensus" is a political term, not a scientific term." Lovely. And ironic that a paper by a physicist challenges the alarmist climatologist most cherished scenario. But, Firm, the fix is in, I'm afraid. Reality has a way of always getting it's day in court, regardless of how much some people wish otherwise. The only "fix" that is in, is death and taxes. But, well .... I'm hoping for brain-machine uploads before my body wears out. Taxes .... well ... hell. Firm

mnottertail -> RE: climate change (again) (12/17/2009 3:00:26 PM)
firm this is a link to some thoughts, from a nasa geek programmer, the overall sight is fabulous used to have alot of pictorials on it, he must have said fuck it: http://www.arachnoid.com/reader_exchanges/cosmology.html

FirmhandKY -> RE: climate change (again) (12/17/2009 6:50:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail firm this is a link to some thoughts, from a nasa geek programmer, the overall sight is fabulous used to have alot of pictorials on it, he must have said fuck it: http://www.arachnoid.com/reader_exchanges/cosmology.html That's a great site, Ron. Thank you. You'll probably keep me off CM for a couple of months, at least .... [:D] Firm

Hillwilliam -> RE: climate change (again) (12/18/2009 11:52:05 AM)
Hey Vincent, Sorry it took a while to get back to you, I'll try to answer some questions but remember, it has been a long time since I was in grad school and even longer since I worked at the Miami Marine lab. The reason 1750 is used as the base year is before that, there werent any good accurate thermometers. You are correct that IR is sent out 24/7 from all parts of the planet but the night side is where the earth can lose heat. As for why the data is fixed to ignore the little ice age and the warming period, again, the thermometer hadnt been invented yet. At least a good reliable one. As for the graph, Im looking at it and each temp peak appears to have a slightly different synerby between atmospheric dust (a cooler) and CO2 (greenhouse gas) You also have to understand that CO@ isnt the only greenhouse gas. Methane isnt there at all on the graph. I'd love to have a looksee at that graph with methane overlain and have the X axis stretched out to give 100 year resolution instead of 1000 year. Im also looking at the valleys. (they are just as important as the peaks). Another fun thing to do would be to have some deep sea cores to look at diatom concentrations over the same time period to get an idea of oceanic primary productivity. (CO2 removal). Things are getting warmer and there is a correlation (I'm not saying causality) with recent CO2 levels. The fact that I'm not saying it is causality means Im not claiming it is anthropogenic but: 1. Why take the chance with our species' future 2. Bad as I hate to say it, oil is a FINITE resource and there are too many things our civilization does with it that are not burning it for fuel. We need to look into alternative energy fast or 100 years from now (yeah, I know we're dead and gone). There will be some huge problems.

popeye1250 -> RE: climate change (again) (12/18/2009 1:27:13 PM)
Funny, that "tree ring" method that they were using was working very well until,.....it showed that their figures were off by a mile! So the warming religion just cherry picks or makes up whatever figures they "need". Can't jeopardise all that potential Taxpayer money!

vincentML -> RE: climate change (again) (12/18/2009 1:35:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Hey Vincent, Sorry it took a while to get back to you, I'll try to answer some questions but remember, it has been a long time since I was in grad school and even longer since I worked at the Miami Marine lab. The reason 1750 is used as the base year is before that, there werent any good accurate thermometers. You are correct that IR is sent out 24/7 from all parts of the planet but the night side is where the earth can lose heat. Thanks for answering, William. I will try to remember it has been awhile since you were at the Miami Marine Lab if you will remember it has been awhile since I taught high school Chemistry in Miami. Wonder if you were in my class. ~smile~ There may not have been good thermometers before 1750, but radiative forcing is measured by satellites at the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere. If memory serves me correctly there were not very many working satellites aloft in 1750 either. I remain puzzled therefore by the date. As for heat loss on the night side of the planet, well isn't there always a night side? quote: As for why the data is fixed to ignore the little ice age and the warming period, again, the thermometer hadnt been invented yet. At least a good reliable one. There is an extensive record of data from parish churches, private diaries, sea captians' logs, agricultural records, and tree rings all of which was previously accepted as a pretty accurate tale of the climate history of North America and Northern Europe between 800 ce and 1850 ce which is taken to be the end of the Little Ice Age, until those temperature proxies became inconvenient to the hockey stick graph that the AGW alarmists were so enthusiastic about. quote: As for the graph, Im looking at it and each temp peak appears to have a slightly different synerby between atmospheric dust (a cooler) and CO2 (greenhouse gas) You also have to understand that CO@ isnt the only greenhouse gas. Methane isnt there at all on the graph. I'd love to have a looksee at that graph with methane overlain and have the X axis stretched out to give 100 year resolution instead of 1000 year. Im also looking at the valleys. (they are just as important as the peaks). Another fun thing to do would be to have some deep sea cores to look at diatom concentrations over the same time period to get an idea of oceanic primary productivity. (CO2 removal). I realize methane is not on the graph. It's effectiveness as a GH gas is about half of that of CO2. I cannot imagine any sources of significant amounts of metane during the ice ages, can you? It is the CO2 that the alarmists accuse of being the culprit. I look at this graph published by the IPCC and shake my head and wonder why they ignore the lag of CO2 peaking behind temperature peaking. The dust concentration seems to peak and fall off sharply before each warming. This is a chart of the major glaciations and interglacial periods. Shows me that warming occurs before increased atmospheric CO2. Hard for me to reconcile the opposite cause and effect now being touted. quote: Things are getting warmer and there is a correlation (I'm not saying causality) with recent CO2 levels. The fact that I'm not saying it is causality means Im not claiming it is anthropogenic but: 1. Why take the chance with our species' future 2. Bad as I hate to say it, oil is a FINITE resource and there are too many things our civilization does with it that are not burning it for fuel. We need to look into alternative energy fast or 100 years from now (yeah, I know we're dead and gone). There will be some huge problems. I agree the energy sources of the future are a problem. Our most abundant alternatives to oil seem to be coal, natural gas, and nuclear. The AGW alarmists would cut back the use of the first two and nuclear has the disposal problem. I would not bet that wind and solar can be generated in quantities useful for Industry and Transportation, especially in a world with a rapidly growing and needy population. Necessity will provide an answer I think....I hope. Again, thanks for answering, William. I really appreciate your taking the time and sharing your thoughts. Vincent

willbeurdaddy -> RE: climate change (again) (12/18/2009 1:40:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Funny, that "tree ring" method that they were using was working very well until,.....it showed that their figures were off by a mile! So the warming religion just cherry picks or makes up whatever figures they "need". Can't jeopardise all that potential Taxpayer money! Hey, the one tree the Briffa hockey stick relied on is clearly the only appropriate one to use because (pick one): 1) the best hockey sticks are composite and that tree was near a graphite mine 2) they found a puck lodged in its limbs 3) it was labeled tree number 4, and Briffa is a Bobby Orr fan 4) all of the other trees were examined by Gary Bettman, who obviously knows nothing about hockey .

vincentML -> RE: climate change (again) (12/18/2009 1:42:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Funny, that "tree ring" method that they were using was working very well until,.....it showed that their figures were off by a mile! So the warming religion just cherry picks or makes up whatever figures they "need". Can't jeopardise all that potential Taxpayer money! Hey, the one tree the Briffa hockey stick relied on is clearly the only appropriate one to use because (pick one): 1) the best hockey sticks are composite and that tree was near a graphite mine 2) they found a puck lodged in its limbs 3) it was labeled tree number 4, and Briffa is a Bobby Orr fan 4) all of the other trees were examined by Gary Bettman, who obviously knows nothing about hockey . Funny!

surelyujest71 -> RE: climate change (again) (12/18/2009 2:18:26 PM)
Oh, wow. I've seen so many global warming type topic areas just in the first 2 pages, here! Let's see... The Ozone Layer - has been proven to be damaged by CFCs. - has been proven to be undamaged after all. - wha?... Even the legit scientists aren't entirely sure about this one! Global Warming. - The majority of thermometers used to detect the temperature are based in cities, which are basically saying they located the thermometers to detect global warming in big concrete heat sinks! However, approximately 20 miles downwind of those cities, you find farmland that's seeing cooler temperatures than average for the area, along with higher rainfall than the rest of the area receieves. Amazingly like a see-saw: add to one end of it, and the other end goes the opposite direction. Glaciation cycle - Scientists have believed for awhile now that the glaciation cycle is still in it's warming phase. In fact, we Should be seeing an increase in temperature over time! So... how much of this Global Warming is due to nature, and we therefor should not fight it, and how much is due to mankind's interference? Remember, in past ages, the period between glaciations turned much of the world into a downright steambath jungle! Or, should be fight the natural order, after all? Fight both global warming and the glaciation cycle, and attempt to stabilize the world's temperature at something unnatural? Is it possible that human life, in it's destruction of jungles and other environments over the past few hundred years, has actually forced the earth's temp to stay slightly lower than it otherwise might be? Does a desert absorb or reflect more heat than farmland? than a rain forest? Don't forget one of the scarier factors mentioned, early on in this threat... I mean, thread: Population. The human population is increasing at an insane rate, and much of that increase is happening in 3rd world contries, where there are much less strict (if any) regulations on industrial waste, pollution, and emissions. So, what do we do about that? Do we restrict the already-restricted countries even more, while continuing to allow the greatest part of pollution to continue in the poor countries? Do we begin to restrict the birth rate in the better developed nations (where birth rates are already lower, anyway) and ignore the population explosion in the les developed nations? A population explosion made possible, in large part, due to improved medical care provided by the more developed nations! Do we stop giving away health care and food to the poor nations? Tell them to cut their population increase to match that of the wealthier nations? Enforce it with our armies? After all... even if the global warming theorists are correct... I don't want to be restricted, while they smile and wave at another country getting rich because we're restricted, and they aren't. Of course, many of these global warming theorists aren't interested in "fair," so much as "punish the wealthy." Ever notice how many of each tend to live in California? lol Also, everyone, the earth is resilient. Suprisingly so. As temperatures increase, the amount of cloud cover does, too, resulting in increased albido (reflection of light back into space) which, of course, helps lower the earth's temperature. It's a pretty nifty system we've got in place, here, and it's highly unlikely we'll manage to break it so badly as to lose New York too soon.

popeye1250 -> RE: climate change (again) (12/18/2009 2:31:54 PM)
Surely, yeah, it is funny that they put thermometers in all the Southern Russian cities and left out "40 % of the country" that was a lot colder! Just buying some "insurance" perhaps?

vincentML -> RE: climate change (again) (12/18/2009 3:40:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: surelyujest71 Don't forget one of the scarier factors mentioned, early on in this threat... I mean, thread: Population. The human population is increasing at an insane rate, and much of that increase is happening in 3rd world contries, where there are much less strict (if any) regulations on industrial waste, pollution, and emissions. So, what do we do about that? Do we restrict the already-restricted countries even more, while continuing to allow the greatest part of pollution to continue in the poor countries? Do we begin to restrict the birth rate in the better developed nations (where birth rates are already lower, anyway) and ignore the population explosion in the les developed nations? A population explosion made possible, in large part, due to improved medical care provided by the more developed nations! Do we stop giving away health care and food to the poor nations? Tell them to cut their population increase to match that of the wealthier nations? Enforce it with our armies? Too many damn people, as I have said here or elsewhere! (just being a wise ass) One of the unintended Malthusian consequences of reducing carbon emissions and inevitably reducing production of goods and services (vis a vis population growth) in fifty years or so may be an impact on saturated third world populations where people will be reduced to fighting over scarce resources and jobs, as if they are not already doing that today. I heard a commentator remarking that this new agreement will send money to offset the cutting down of rain forests. I wonder how that will help the hungry and unemployed. I agree with you. The planet is resilient. It will adjust. It may be that the human species cannot survive the natural climate changes, particularly when the new glaciation begins. Maybe we are not so damn special after all. Vincent

surelyujest71 -> RE: climate change (again) (12/18/2009 4:57:24 PM)
Oh, I believe that humanity is resilient, too! Besides which, the glaciers won't reach all the way to the equator; there'll still be plenty of viable land. Just not enough for the 50 billion or so who will probably be trying to live on the earth's surface by the time the glaciers really do start moving in. People will die, civilizations will rise and fall, and technology will, by fits and starts, be knocked back to the iron/steel ages... at least, in most areas. One should wonder... what happens if we fight global warming, and accidentally take it too far? A single decimal out of place... could we trigger a glaciation?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: climate change (again) (12/18/2009 4:58:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: surelyujest71 Oh, I believe that humanity is resilient, too! Besides which, the glaciers won't reach all the way to the equator; there'll still be plenty of viable land. Just not enough for the 50 billion or so who will probably be trying to live on the earth's surface by the time the glaciers really do start moving in. People will die, civilizations will rise and fall, and technology will, by fits and starts, be knocked back to the iron/steel ages... at least, in most areas. One should wonder... what happens if we fight global warming, and accidentally take it too far? A single decimal out of place... could we trigger a glaciation? We may already be barely staving off an ice age. and dont call me Shirley.

surelyujest71 -> RE: climate change (again) (12/18/2009 5:41:00 PM)
quote: We may already be barely staving off an ice age. and dont call me Shirley. I've seen a little info that suggests the same. Of course, a few science fiction authors have tossed in their 2 bits, too. The suggestion that all of the global warming junk we've been pumping into the air has pretty much stabilized a climate which otherwise would already have started growing new glaciers is fairly interesting... Science is like Statistics... ask the same question enough times, and you get to pick the answer you want.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875