It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Lets finish this! Numbers do not lie.

page: 10
280
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
If there was a warming trend, which the data obviously shows, and it is not explained by the increase in CO2, then it only makes sense that energy is coming into this system from somewhere else. The other greenhouse gases, such as methane, would have some effect, but I doubt that effect can explain what we have seen in its entirety. The only additional heat source I can think of is volcanic/tectonic, and it does appear that the number/severity of earthquakes and active volcanoes has increased lately. I use the word 'seem' because there is some debate over whether this is an actual increase or only an increase in reporting.


Two points that you're missing: there's a synergistic effect with the greenhouse gases.

Do you remember making ice cream? You can't just use ice and water; you have to add salt to the water to make it even colder. CO2 by itself doesn't do much but CO2 with water vapor (as in car exhausts) plus methane (many sources) makes it far hotter than the individual calculations suggest. Just like salty ice water gets a lot colder than plain old water.

The second point I think you've missed is the dynamics. Take New Orleans, as an example -- when just the Native Americans lived in the area, the CO2 levels were fairly stable. Then people with permanent settlements moved in and they copped out the trees and drained swamps and redirected the river to make the place liveable. One house took away the equivalent of 3-4 trees plus shrubs plus vegetation converting CO2.

Consider the house space now that took the place of the trees. It's a flat space that reflects heat, it adds CO2 and water vapor and methane from burning fires for cooking (or local power plants) and other human activities. The CO2 absorption and the water absorption from the plants isn't happening and the cooling effect of the masses of trees is lost. CO2 and water vapor doesn't get absorbed by the trees. It hangs around in the air. The extra CO2 and water vapor also keeps pollutants (particles, gases) in the same area. So now we've got not just CO2 and water vapor but a lot of other things baking on a hot flat pavement and not a tree in sight.

Then add millions of automobiles, power plants, shipping lanes and dockyards, houses, feed lots, and so on and so forth which were created by chopping down the forests. Add fields around the place for human activity and for farming (and even more trees and native grasses are gone.)

Same with grazing herds and farms... the good prairie grasses (like bluestem and switchgrass which are efficient at converting CO2) get ploughed under or eaten down to bare ground and the things that come back (crops, weeds, less efficient grass) don't convert all the CO2 that the prairie used to. You have a net gain of heat plus other gases that weren't there in the first place (plus environmental poisons.)

It's a dynamic, synergystic model, and you can't model it well with a two dimensional array.


Everyone reading this can make a difference in how robust our ecosphere is. Plant a tree, or care for a group of trees. Put the garbage in the can. Actually look before you buy a product to see just how much plastic wrapping you are paying for. Use a compost heap for a lot of your trash if you garden. These actions cost little to nothing in money or time, and combined will make a huge difference. And if you just have to do more, clean up in your neighborhood. In the US we have the "Adopt-a-Highway" program, where you can pledge to clean up one small section of highway. They even put up a nice little sign with your name on it.

These actions will make more difference than worrying about carbon dioxide levels or lobbying for disastrous economic practices. They will make your corner of the world a cleaner place, reduce waste, and allow nature to regain control over itself.


WONDERFUL recommendations and heartily seconded. If you have trouble doing the above (you live in an apartment, etc), join a park as a volunteer or donate to a foundation (I volunteer at an Audubon park) and help educate others and help make that a better space.




posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by vox2442
The whole point of assessing CO2 - or any greenhouse gas - is radiative forcing. It's no use in applying a 1:1 relationship between the amount of CO2 and heating as you're doing, because greenhouse gasses behave differently depending on their concentration. The relationship is logarithmic, IIRC.

In other words, it's not the amount of CO2 that's the issue - it's what the CO2 does and how it reacts in concentration that's important.

Why not use one of the many formulas available for calculating this effect? Wiki is bound to have one or two.


I see we're responding along the same lines.
No, folks, Vox isn't my Evyl Twin.

As I said in another comment, IIRC the mix of gases plus the water vapor (that seems to be ignored) is a synergy and putting two or more in combination increases the effect by some factor... it's not just a straight line calculation.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 12:03 AM
link   


These actions will make more difference than worrying about carbon dioxide levels or lobbying for disastrous economic practices. They will make your corner of the world a cleaner place, reduce waste, and allow nature to regain control over itself.


Quoting a Quote here. sorry for this.

I think many people should read the second word in this. "actions will make more diffence than worrying about carbon levels.

we effect everything.

we are the stone that was put into the lake!

Our actions should be noticed by all and understood. Because it will indeed change our future.

Think it wont? you very very much mistaken

And i do not need a phd in math for that one



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 12:34 AM
link   
m = my brain h = HS diploma and y = your calculations

m(h) + y= ???

cant say i have the math background to confirm any of this but mindnumbing numbers none the less. Well done (psst be sure to carry your remainder)



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneckI did not specifically address this phenomena, but it is included. Allow me to explain: the energy which comes from the sun in the form of solar irradiance is the source of energy. Carbon dioxide will not be affected by the incoming rays, but rather by the heat reflected as you state. A certain percentage of that heat will be absorbed by any available carbon dioxide, then re-emitted, ideally transmitting 50% of that energy upwards into space and 50% down toward the planet. Of that 50% transmitted down, some will be reflected again, and that may contact another carbon dioxide molecule.

The absorption rate, however, is not 100% even if the heat energy reaches a carbon dioxide molecule. Carbon dioxide only absorbs narrow spectrums of electromagnetic energy. The attenuation would be much higher.

But in the end, the amount of energy that is absorbed by the carbon dioxide cannot at any time exceed the energy initially produced into the system. This, since my calculations assume that the carbon dioxide absorbs 100% of the energy available to it, and does not release any energy, the calculations do indeed not only take this into account, but in a very conservative fashion.

An excellent question, nonetheless!


TheRedneck


Your initial value for the energy available to the CO2 doesn't take into account absorption levels at specific wavelengths though. The incoming rays will have a wide distribution of wavelengths but the energy re-radiated by the earth will be in the IR band at wavelengths which are strongly absorbed by CO2 (black body radiation laws). Some 73% of the energy that hits the earth is re-radiated as IR radiation (I think) and a large proportion of that is at wavelengths which is strongly absorbed by CO2.

You're taking the total energy hitting the earth and multiplying it by the proportion of CO2 which assumes an even distribution of absorption across the atmosphere which is not the case for incoming energy and most certainly not the case for re-radiated energy.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 02:19 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 02:22 AM
link   
I haven't checked all calculations, but the first number I checked seems to be wrong. The solar constant used in the calculations is 1366 W/m², while in fact it is 1366 W/m-² or 1366 kW/m².

EDIT: never mind about that, just realized its American notation.

And I fail to see why the energy needed to heat up the all water is relevant. Isn't the surface temperature much more relevant?

[edit on 3-12-2009 by -PLB-]

[edit on 3-12-2009 by -PLB-]



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Well done "TheRedneck." Starred and flagged. Even though you said it, some people don't seem to understand it.

You mentioned that these calculations are based on many assumptions, and without adding the fact that other natural factors also influence temperatures, such as the increase of water vapor levels, and it's much higher absorption band of radiation than CO2.

The increase in activity of the Sun until three years ago. The large fluctuations, and the weakening of the magnetic field of the Earth which allows more radiation to penetrate the atmosphere.

The large fluctuations, and weakening of the interplanetary field which is allowing more cosmic rays, charged particles, plasma, etc and which has caused arecent increase of about 19% in cosmic radiation more than ever since we started taking readings of space.

The fact that even scientists have found out that other space sources have recently been heating the Earth's atmosphere because of the interplanetary field large fluctuations and weakening.

I am probably missing a few more, but you made it clear that the calculations do not include any of the above, it just shows the maximum amount of radiation/energy that CO2 could "RETAIN" (GHGS DO NOT TRAP RADIATION...)

Then there is the fact that for example Water vapor retaints radiation in the absorption bands which is shared in great part by CO2, and the fact that NO ONE has been able to verify exactly how much radiation is absorbed by CO2, hence why there are so many different claims.

Meanwhile the AGW proponents claim, without any proof, that water vapor can only account for about 66% - 80%, when including clouds of the greenhouse effect, meanwhile according to them CO2 accounts from 9% - 26% of the greenhouse effect, other scientists, and scientific groups put the amount at 95% -98% for water vapor account in the greenhouse effect, and CO2 at 2% -5%, alongside other ghgs.

Nature itself, and the geological evidence supports the numbers of the "other scientists" or who the AGW proponents call "the deniers" simply because CO2 ALWAYS lags temperature changes, and it doesn't seem to be the cause for "any dramatic warming"...

Even government websites give the amount of 95% for water vapor account in the greenhouse effect and 5% for CO2, but also for the rest of the ghgs in the troposphere.

This is another fact, web sites like realclimate.org don't mention "the troposphere when they include their numbers of percentage absorbtion for the two gases, but they emphasize "the entire atmosphere", even though the Tropophere has 75% of the mass of the entire atmosphere and it is where 99% of all gases, including CO2, reside in the atmosphere... But these sites do this to be able to skew with their numbers and to claim water vapor accounts for less of the greenhouse effect, and CO2 accounts for more thant the REAL scientists say...

Only web sites like "wikipedia" and "realclimate.org" which change facts, have even changed statements from scientists posting in their websites trying to correct errors, etc, corroborate the claims of the AGW proponents just because those in power in these two websites, among some others, are AGW proponents....

That's of course without commenting that site like "realclimate.org" have as directors many of those same "scientists", like Mann, who were just caught making comments in their emails not to allow anyone to get to the raw data, and the main programs, as well as using several tactics to hide, throw out, and bury data, and evidence that refutes their AGW RELIGION...

So who are you going to believe?...


Anyway, again, good job.




[edit on 3-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


Could you tell us then why the IPCC, and for the most part the entire AGW camp are just trying to stop "CO2" and puting "cap and trade" among other treaties restricting MAINLY CO2?......



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Could you tell us then why the IPCC, and for the most part the entire AGW camp are just trying to stop "CO2" and puting "cap and trade" among other treaties restricting MAINLY CO2?......


CO2 has become the public face of the issue because its production is closely linked to the production of other greenhouse gasses - but more importantly, it's the one thing that individuals can focus on. Makes more sense to most people than trying to figure out what your sulfur hexafloride footprint is. But the fact is that cutting CO2 emissions in, say, coal burning power plants will also reduce other greenhouse gasses as a result of the process of the power plant and the supply chain for same.

In any case, the Kyoto Protocol does not only deal with CO2 - there are four GHGs and two fluorocarbons covered in the protocol. The IPCC report also talks in detail about this set of 6 gasses, as does every other major conference and international discussion on the topic since well before Kyoto.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

And I fail to see why the energy needed to heat up the all water is relevant. Isn't the surface temperature much more relevant?
The oceans of the earth represent a massive heat sink to store energy, that would be their relevance.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Sorry TheRedneck, but you debunked yourself before you even started.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
All heat energy reaching the earth is from the sun....


This statement is 100% inaccurate and throws all of your calculations out of whack. Your entire topic is false.

1) Your calculations don't include geothermal radiation (Heat released from Earth's core).

Okay, if you are postulating that geothermal radiation is a major factor here, how about trying a common sense thought experiment? I will reach up and pull the string on the switch that turns the sun off. Please tell me how long you think it will take you to freeze to death. You may survive for a while if you burrow down into the Earth's (insulating) crust, but you better get a huge head start before I pull the switch. Ever hear of the seasons of the year? They are caused by differences in the amount of SUNLIGHT that strike the earth due to the angle of the earth's axis in relationship to it's orbit around the sun. That causes some fairly dramatic temperature changes here on Earth. I believe that geothermal radiation can be viewed as a constant in TheRednecks figures. Let me know when we get a 'hot spell' in the weather due to a change in geothermal radiation.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

The second point I think you've missed is the dynamics. Take New Orleans, as an example -- when just the Native Americans lived in the area, the CO2 levels were fairly stable. Add fields around the place for human activity and for farming (and even more trees and native grasses are gone.)

Same with grazing herds and farms... the good prairie grasses (like bluestem and switchgrass which are efficient at converting CO2) get ploughed under or eaten down to bare ground and the things that come back (crops, weeds, less efficient grass) don't convert all the CO2 that the prairie used to. You have a net gain of heat plus other gases that weren't there in the first place.
When prairie fires burned enough of the prairies to blot out the sun in New England and make the rain black with soot, because Native Americans could not put them out, how much of the prairie was converted to CO2? While large swathes of the prairie consisted of ash, how much CO2 were they converting?

[edit on 3-12-2009 by butcherguy]It is my opinion that people think more of the human race than they deserve. We are just a few flies on the biggest turd you can imagine, IMO.

[edit on 3-12-2009 by butcherguy]Oh yeah, about those countless buffalo(bison) that darkened the plains for millions of years before the evil europeans damned near killed them all. I suppose with an average standing weight of considerably more than modern cattle, they didn't eat any prairie grasses? I think if you stand near a bison long enough, you will find that they tend to expel(from both ends) the dreaded methane that contributes to global warming. We shouldn't be allowed to raise cows....... I guess we should have killed all the bison!

[edit on 3-12-2009 by butcherguy]Them's some dynamics.

[edit on 3-12-2009 by butcherguy]Dagnabit! I don't know what to think now. The native americans often set fires to drive buffalo during their hunts(pre spanish horses) so, do I have to hate those evil firestarting natives for starting the fires? Or must I love them for at least trying to kill off those dastardly prairie-destroying buffalo?

[edit on 3-12-2009 by butcherguy]



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
The oceans of the earth represent a massive heat sink to store energy, that would be their relevance.


But only sea surface temperature needs to increase, then it will stop being much of a sink. You don't need the suggested amount of energy to do that, even the seasonal weather changes make it fluctuate several degrees.

[edit on 3-12-2009 by -PLB-]



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 
You have a valid point. I was just making the point that the oceans, due to currents and thermal layering, do represent a storehouse of energy. I wasn't thinking enough in the grand scheme. star to you.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by DjSharperimage

Originally posted by downisreallyup
reply to post by DjSharperimage
 


Also, CO reforms into CO2 in the air, only remaining in the air for a relatively short time (couple months).


Considering such large amounts continually being put into the air;
the levels would be constant or growing......

They are putting more CO into the air then the time it takes CO to convert into CO2

You say it takes a couple months for CO CARBON MONOXIDE to turn into CARBON DIOXIDE CO2?
Well the whole planet is putting CO Carbon Monoxide into the air 24/7

Plus from CO CARBON MONOXIDE stripping oxygen atoms from the air; we would have less air to breath, combined with all the forests being cut down


[edit on 1-12-2009 by DjSharperimage]

Again, it's not CO. The total CO forcing per year is only about 1 billion tons. CO2 emissions are 9.1 or more billion tons. And CO doesn't strip "atoms" - the atoms are still there. That is the point of a baalnced reaction; i. e. 2CO+3O2--->2CO2+2O2. See, 8 O atomss going in, 8 coming out. One diatomic oxygen is split and recombines. Electrons can be stripped sometimes by the action of energy application. Maybe that's what you're thinking of. For instance, a solar proton event can impart enough energy to ionize (strip an electron away, from an oxygen atom. For instances a 41.6 kEv event will strip the 2s electron from oxygen. Once the 2s are all gone, it takes 543 keV to strip a 1s. As you go up the periodic table, binding energies get greater.
BTW, one of the reasons not much CO is emitted is the if enough oxygen is present, the CO burns. In fact, the blue part of the flame on your gas stove is most probably the CO bnurning. The CO is only emitted if there is not enough oxidant (oxygen) to complete the reaction. That.s one reason for the oxygen sensor on your car You can only get all the energy out of your gasoline if you have enough oxygen to burn it completely.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd

Do you remember making ice cream? You can't just use ice and water; you have to add salt to the water to make it even colder.

Adding salt does not make the salt/ice mixture colder... the salt decreases the melting point of the mixture, turning it from a mixture of solids into a liquid solution. Since liquid makes better contact with the drum that holds the ice cream, it transmits the heat from the ice cream more effectively, cooling it better.

Adding salt does not remove heat. The only way heat can be consumed or created in a mixture is for there to be a chemical reaction in that mixture. Once you are done, you could distill the water off the mixture, and you would be left with salt.

In the atmosphere, the carbon dioxide does not combine chemically with other atmospheric components. It is still carbon dioxide.


The second point I think you've missed is the dynamics. Take New Orleans, as an example -- when just the Native Americans lived in the area, the CO2 levels were fairly stable. Then people with permanent settlements moved in and they copped out the trees and drained swamps and redirected the river to make the place liveable. One house took away the equivalent of 3-4 trees plus shrubs plus vegetation converting CO2.

Would that not be factored into the average carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere? If we decrease the planet's ability to sink carbon dioxide, the result is an increase in carbon dioxide. That increase is indeed taken into account, in the average carbon dioxide levels of the atmosphere.


WONDERFUL recommendations and heartily seconded. If you have trouble doing the above (you live in an apartment, etc), join a park as a volunteer or donate to a foundation (I volunteer at an Audubon park) and help educate others and help make that a better space.

Thank you; I have always been a strong advocate of doing whatever is practical to help this planet maintain itself. That said, I don't believe it requires us to stop using electricity, stop traveling, or undergo poverty and lack in order to accomplish this. Simple, basic, everyday actions can do more to help life in general on this planet thrive than higher taxation by power-hungry politicians could ever do.

In the end, that is what we are talking about: not the planet itself, but the ecology of the planet. To quote the late, great George Carlin:
"The planet is fine. The planet isn't going anywhere. We are..."

I don't agree that we (humanity) are heading for ecological disaster of course, but I also don't think that, if we were, a group of power brokers taking our money is going to stop it.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by 13579

Our actions should be noticed by all and understood. Because it will indeed change our future.

All life affects the ecology of the planet. I have thought many times that this aspect of life should actually be included in the definition of life.

A tree provides its own ecological zone of influence, creating a mini-environment around it. It will compete with other trees, and if competition is strong enough, literally bend and twist its way to the forest canopy to force its own access to precious sunlight.

The humble earthworm loosens the soil as it burrows, making it easier for plants to grow and thrive.

The honeybee busies itself with finding food for itself, but in the process spreads pollen far and wide to allow plants to procreate.

The mighty cougar kills deer for its prey... in the process providing food for smaller lifeforms from the remains of the carcass and even sending those nutrients form that carcass back into the soil.

Everything which is alive causes a change to the environment. Taken together, these changes melt together into a stable state. It is only when one species decides that it is their purpose in life to determine what changes must be made by others that the balance is thrown off. Is that nopt what is being done with Cap & Trade? One group of people deciding they and they alone know what levels of carbon dioxide are proper, and enforcing this belief through force?

Let the planet live free. There is no danger in present carbon dioxide levels. As they increase, the ability of plants to grow and use up the excess will increase and self-correct the system. It's the way nature works. It is not up to us to jump-start something that is already running just fine.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-

But only sea surface temperature needs to increase, then it will stop being much of a sink. You don't need the suggested amount of energy to do that, even the seasonal weather changes make it fluctuate several degrees.

Those seasonal fluctuations are short-lived. It is true that the sea will warm on its surface at first, as heat takes time to travel through conductive processes. But a prolonged warming on the surface will transmit a warming to the lower depths over time. The seasons you mention are over the space of a few months; climate forecasts generally look at the next 100 years. That's a large time difference, and plenty of time for heat to conduct through water.

Also, remember that when it is summer in the northern hemisphere, it is winter in the southern hemisphere. The seasonal differences you mention are not global; they are hemispherical. The abverage temperature of the planet is what we are discussing.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   
The thing I don't buy about climate change is this.

This planet has existed for billions of years. It has seen everything from a greenhouse Earth to what is known as snowball Earth. It balances out. The planet is always in a state of flux as far as it's climate goes, that is how it has maintained itself so well.

I seriously doubt that humans are a major contributing factor in global climate change, sure we might contribute a bit to overall planet performance, but in the long run we aren't a huge problem.



In the grand scheme of things do you think that we are a threat to this planet?



new topics

top topics



 
280
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join