Climate Change

[D_Archer]

What do you consider pollution? If you describe what kind of pollution then there are bound to be some initiatives to stop it.

As for "global warming" man can not as of yet (that i know off) control the earth's temperature, climate etc. If we at all have an influence it would be negligible, Sol would be the master of our global climate not us humans, that would be hubris.

Regards,
Daniel

[HelloNiceToMeetYou]

Well theres EM pollution and chemical. Both of them cannot be good for our health and environment

[bdw000]

I saw this on Amzon just today, and wanted to buy it, but there was no hard copy available yet.

I don't mind ebooks, but I personally need those hard copys.

[PersianPaladin]

I am convinced that anthropogenic global warming is credible.

Why?

Well....I'll start off with this:-

Why does Mars have a much more extreme diurnal temperature range than the earth? Is it maybe because the thickness of the atmosphere is insufficient to absorb outgoing solar radiation efficiently? If the latter is true...then there are greenhouse gases present, and CO2 is a PROVEN greenhouse gas.

Mythbusters confirm carbon dioxide warms air:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

Richard Alley on CO2 as the "climate control knob":-
http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2009/1 ... e-history/


Again....this doesn't mean that any of this stuff inherently "refutes" EU theory.

[PersianPaladin]

I do have some problems with the "Mythbusters" video though.

While it proves that CO2 warms air; it actually fails to explain the specific quantity and proportions of CO2 used. It fails to explain whether all air was removed from inside those glass boxes..., and what the conditions in the control boxes were. I'm not happy with it.

[allynh]

I googled build a greenhouse and found this site.

Planning and Building a Greenhouse
http://www.wvu.edu/~agexten/hortcult/gr ... ilding.htm

It's obvious from the designs that sunlight is not enough to keep the greenhouse warm, and that adding CO2 is necessary to feed the plants. My goodness, CO2 is plant food! Who knew.

CO2 and Light

Carbon dioxide (CO2) and light are essential for plant growth. As the sun rises in the morning to provide light, the plants begin to produce food energy (photosynthesis). The level of CO2 drops in the greenhouse as it is used by the plants. Ventilation replenishes the CO2 in the greenhouse. Because CO2 and light complement each other, electric lighting combined with CO2 injection are used to increase yields of vegetable and flowering crops. Bottled CO2, dry ice, and combustion of sulfur-free fuels can be used as CO2 sources. Commercial greenhouses use such methods.

So much for global warming.

The main point mentioned in the 1908 Popular Astronomy text is that Venus was expected to be as warm as when the Earth was in the Huronian-Cambrian(called Proterozoic today) Age which certainly was not hot enough to melt lead. They only started coming up with bizarre models when Venus was found to be hot and had to wiggle out of that fact.

Think of science as split between Pre-Velikovsky(PV) and After Velikovsky(AV). When you read the old science texts you can see how clueless they were when it came to things that they literally could not put their hands on or get real equipment to. You need to see what the consensus view of reality was Pre-Velikovsky(PV) then you can understand how bizarre the retroactive consensus changes became After Velikovsky(AV).

[PersianPaladin]

I googled build a greenhouse and found this site.

Planning and Building a Greenhouse
http://www.wvu.edu/~agexten/hortcult/gr ... ilding.htm

It's obvious from the designs that sunlight is not enough to keep the greenhouse warm, and that adding CO2 is necessary to feed the plants. My goodness, CO2 is plant food! Who knew.

CO2 and Light

Carbon dioxide (CO2) and light are essential for plant growth. As the sun rises in the morning to provide light, the plants begin to produce food energy (photosynthesis). The level of CO2 drops in the greenhouse as it is used by the plants. Ventilation replenishes the CO2 in the greenhouse. Because CO2 and light complement each other, electric lighting combined with CO2 injection are used to increase yields of vegetable and flowering crops. Bottled CO2, dry ice, and combustion of sulfur-free fuels can be used as CO2 sources. Commercial greenhouses use such methods.

So much for global warming.

The main point mentioned in the 1908 Popular Astronomy text is that Venus was expected to be as warm as when the Earth was in the Huronian-Cambrian(called Proterozoic today) Age which certainly was not hot enough to melt lead. They only started coming up with bizarre models when Venus was found to be hot and had to wiggle out of that fact.

Think of science as split between Pre-Velikovsky(PV) and After Velikovsky(AV). When you read the old science texts you can see how clueless they were when it came to things that they literally could not put their hands on or get real equipment to. You need to see what the consensus view of reality was Pre-Velikovsky(PV) then you can understand how bizarre the retroactive consensus changes became After Velikovsky(AV).

You have to remember that while Donald Scott does agree with some of Velikovsky's claims; he did actually state that most of Velikovsky's claims turned out to be wrong. And for your information, Velikovsky was not a scientist.

Don Scott explains it at some point in this interview:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wMt3JuCTs

[PersianPaladin]

As for the claim that CO2-increases follow temperature-increases - yes, that is correct when you consider natural variation. However, that does not disprove the fact that CO2 feedbacks exacerbate the warming triggered by the natural variations. The CO2 releases (e.g. from the ocean, methane outgassing) add to the warming that was initiated by the non-gaseous triggering of the warming.

An explanation is here:-

The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.

The only conclusion that can be reached from the observed lag between CO2 and temperatures in the past 400,000 years is that CO2 did not initiate the shifts towards interglacials. To understand current climate change, scientists have looked at many factors, such as volcanic activity and solar variability, and concluded that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the most likely factor driving current climate change. This conclusion is not based on the analysis of past climate change, though this provides key insights into the way climate responds to different forcings and adds weight to the several lines of evidence that strongly support the role of greenhouse gases in recent warming.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lag ... rature.htm

And since the troposphere is warming, and the stratosphere is cooling (the latter indicating LESS energy escaping the planet); how can it be merely solar cycles contributing to warming? The solar effect would have a more even effect on the atmosphere.

If the sun was causing global warming, we would see days warming faster than nights. We see the opposite - nights warming faster than days - a characteristic of greenhouse warming. Similarly, if the sun was causing global warming, we would see the upper atmosphere warming as well as the lower atmosphere. Instead, we see the upper atmosphere cooling as the lower atmosphere warms. Again, a distinct signature of greenhouse warming. The unique signatures we'd expect from solar warming are strikingly absent.

[Aardwolf]

CO2 is a minor trace gas as far as climate is concerned. The greenhouse effect is caused by water. That's why the dry air of deserts at the equator are below 0c in winter at night.

Climatologists have spent the last 30 years telling us this fact doesn't matter and unfortunately some gullible people believe it.

[PersianPaladin]

CO2 is a well established greenhouse gas; just like water is. If you add millions of years of carbon into the atmosphere in a very short time-period (via burning fossil-fuels) - then that is going to add a lot to the existing greenhouse gas mix.

Current levels of CO2 are the highest in over 15 million years:-

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucl ... 11074.aspx

(Oh, and I kindly ask you to address my points made above).

[PersianPaladin]

- Build a greenhouse, with only Venus level light and see how hot it actually gets.

If anybody can get the temperature up to 800 degrees then they have solved the energy crisis because we can run steam off an 800 degree source. I'm not holding my breath.

In other words, people arguing for the "runaway greenhouse effect" have never actually built a greenhouse.

We wouldn't solve the energy crisis - mainly because the energy return over energy invested (EROEI) would not merit the burning of steam from that 800C temperature (given the energy required to process and input the gases into the chamber).

[Jarvamundo]

CO2 is a well established greenhouse gas; just like water is. If you add millions of years of carbon into the atmosphere in a very short time-period (via burning fossil-fuels) - then that is going to add a lot to the existing greenhouse gas mix.

Current levels of CO2 are the highest in over 15 million years:-

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucl ... 11074.aspx

(Oh, and I kindly ask you to address my points made above).

It seems, this can be answered with your previous post.

"The only conclusion that can be reached from the observed lag between CO2 and temperatures in the past 400,000 years is that CO2 did not initiate the shifts towards interglacials."

CO2 is a minor trace gas as far as climate is concerned. The greenhouse effect is caused by water.

+ 1 right on.

Water vapour is by far the largest contributor, CO2 (let alone AnthropogenicCO2 contribution) are vastly insignificant in comparison.

Now with regard to PP's comments on the sun, it appears he did not understand my links to "the cloud mystery" site, in which the sun's magnetic field has been show to regulate cosmic ray seeding of clouds (atmospherically suspended clouds of Water Vapour), applying simpleton 'the sun's not heating it', totally misses the point of the research mentioned. I'd encourage you to go look again, (or hey the first time).

I'm absolutely all for less pollution, less emissions, but to blatantly dismiss the role of the earths connected position in the solar environment, and instill a sense of illogically connected CO2 is bad panic, appears meaningless to me.

[PersianPaladin]

CO2 is a well established greenhouse gas; just like water is. If you add millions of years of carbon into the atmosphere in a very short time-period (via burning fossil-fuels) - then that is going to add a lot to the existing greenhouse gas mix.

Current levels of CO2 are the highest in over 15 million years:-

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucl ... 11074.aspx

(Oh, and I kindly ask you to address my points made above).

It seems, this can be answered with your previous post.

"The only conclusion that can be reached from the observed lag between CO2 and temperatures in the past 400,000 years is that CO2 did not initiate the shifts towards interglacials."

CO2 is a minor trace gas as far as climate is concerned. The greenhouse effect is caused by water.

+ 1 right on.

Water vapour is by far the largest contributor, CO2 (let alone AnthropogenicCO2 contribution) are vastly insignificant in comparison.

Now with regard to PP's comments on the sun, it appears he did not understand my links to "the cloud mystery" site, in which the sun's magnetic field has been show to regulate cosmic ray seeding of clouds (atmospherically suspended clouds of Water Vapour), applying simpleton 'the sun's not heating it', totally misses the point of the research mentioned. I'd encourage you to go look again, (or hey the first time).

I'm absolutely all for less pollution, less emissions, but to blatantly dismiss the role of the earths connected position in the solar environment, and instill a sense of illogically connected CO2 is bad panic, appears meaningless to me.

I'm afraid I must protest at your obfuscation!

Go back and read the quote from my post. It said:-

"The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns."

Nowhere did I claim that CO2 initiated the cycles. I said that it amplified the warming as part of major feedbacks (i.e. the carbon cycle).

And your arguments about relative small proportions are rather misled. Have you discussed this with atmospheric physicsts, paleogeologists, etc?

As for your claims about cosmic rays - please state how their seedling of clouds relates to the data about CO2 and temperature over the historical record (as found in lithosphere, cryosphere, biosphere empirical findings)?

I don't understand why many EU theorists seem to think that plasma cosmology somehow over-rides things at all domains. I think the EU is credible; but I also think the science behind AGW is credible too.

[Jarvamundo]

And your arguments about relative small proportions are rather misled. Have you discussed this with atmospheric physicsts, paleogeologists, etc?

Not arguments. Only the same data Aadwolf seems to be familiar with.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

As for your claims about cosmic rays - please state how their seedling of clouds relates to the data about CO2 and temperature over the historical record (as found in lithosphere, cryosphere, biosphere empirical findings)?

Again not my claims, only data.

But it would tend to go along like much of the historical records you have linked. Temperature increases *then* the largest CO2 sink (the ocean) releases CO2, which appears in your core samples. Interestingly the historical ice records are a good place to look for cosmic ray flux
http://www.space.dtu.dk/English/Researc ... imate.aspx


So given CO2 represents around 3% of greenhouse gases, and man represents about 3% of that, we are presented with the option of looking for *an answer* from man's 0.117% total contribution. Or one could look into the obvious impacts that solar-connected systems has with the 95%+ contribution that water vapor makes? as the sayin goes... "if one was a bettin man"

Unfortunately one cannot tax cosmic rays ...... hmmm... well i guess, not until the talented bureaucrats hand out a few more Nobels to each other and convince the masses to pay-for-flux.

I don't understand why many EU theorists seem to think that plasma cosmology somehow over-rides things at all domains. I think the EU is credible; but I also think the science behind AGW is credible too.

We all come to the table with ideals & biases, which is why we ruthlessly discuss all the data.

The Venus surface temp delema, being yet another example to investigate, at which point we should probably return the thread to topic.

Best,

[tayga]

The Venus surface temp delema, being yet another example to investigate, at which point we should probably return the thread to topic.

Hear, hear. I can read the arguments for AGW at any number of places on the Internet but this is the first time I've seen a critical analysis of the original premise of the Greenhouse Effect. Could we please get back to Lucy Skywalker's original topic?