Lets finish this! Numbers do not lie.

reply to post by vox2442


They still focus mainly on atmospheric CO2, when CO2 is FOOD for plants, trees, and harvests.

Higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations increases harvest, and makes trees and all green biomass bigger, and stronger, not to mention that with higher levels of atmospheric CO2 plants use water more efficiently needing less water, which is also very benefitial, yet the UN, the politicians, and the environmentalists want to not only stop the increase of atmospheric CO2, but they ALSO want to sequester atmospheric CO2 levels, which will make Earth LESS GREEN...

How is that going to save the planet? And the other questions still stand, China, Russia, India and other nations are being allowed to have NO cap emission whatsoever, and they have stated they will never accept any emission caps of any kind. This will only make corporations move their businesses to nations like China, Russia, India, and others which have even less environmental laws, if any, than western nations.... Again, how is that going to "save the world"?...

It is obvious these policies, taxes on CO2, cap and trade etc, are only meant to "redistribute wealth" to those who are ALREADY rich...




[edit on 3-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by whatukno]

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

Yes the earth has survived multiple comet impacts, ice ages, climate changes etc..but the majority of (very adaptable) species have not.

The earth will shake us humans off like a bad cold and be just fine.

When we get sick...most often the body's first strategy is to fluxuate temperature to kill of any invaders that are less than adaptable to temperature fluxuations.

We humans have a great deal of arrogance...the earth will be just fine without us...and all you have to do is stare out at the stars, think about the diversity of life on just our tiny earth and then watch the nightly news to start to suspect that is unlikely that we are "God's favorite"...we are an arrogant bunch.

......who knows maybe when we are gone dolphins, rats or cockroaches are next at bat to have an evolutionary leap and give "intelligent" civilization a shot on this little marble.

The envirornmental movement is about quality of life for humans on the planet and later on about the survival of the human species..but "saving the earth" has nothing to do with it.

Just my 2 cents.

Originally posted by maybereal11
The envirornmental movement is about quality of life for humans on the planet and later on about the survival of the human species..but "saving the earth" has nothing to do with it.

I defiantly agree with you on first half of the above point, the environmental movement is without doubt focused on preserving the long term quality of life of all humans on planet Earth. Though this means arguing for nations such as the USA to work on reducing consumption so that there is more to go around. An argument that I believe to be at the heart of those who oppose the environmental movement(s).

However, while I follow your assertion that the environmental movement is not about 'saving the earth' because it will be just fine once we are gone, I do believe that a major intent within most, if not all, environmental movements is to save the Earth or aspects of it.

First off environmental integrity is essential for the survival of the human spices. This survival does not even begin to talk about 'quality of life' or 'affluence' only mere survival.

For this reason the main focus of environmental movements is to protect, preserve, and rehabilitate ecosystems and biodiversity. It is both selfish and selfless to be sure.

reply to post by Animal

Though this means arguing for nations such as the USA to work on reducing consumption so that there is more to go around. An argument that I believe to be at the heart of those who oppose the environmental movement(s).

What would you propose to be the reason that the USA consumes so much energy?

Could it be that we produce food for the entire world?

Could it be that we (once) produced products for the entire world?

Could it be that we maintain military aid (albeit a lot of it extraneous or even counterproductive) for the entire world?

Could it be that the USA was the epicenter of the Industrial Revolution, which makes it responsible for all of the modern conveniences?

Could it be that the citizens of the USA worked long and hard to make the above true? Remember that the USA is a relatively young country compared to many, and was started by groups of outcasts and felons.

And finally, could it be that I detect jealousy in your post?

---------------------------------------------

I do believe you have just made me realize something... yes, as pointed out in the OP, anthropogenic carbon dioxide cannot account for large temperature rises. But attempts to stop such can account for economic misery for the USA. Is that what this is about? Do you hate us so much that you would do anything, even perpetuate a lie that could harm you as well, to see us suffer? Keep in mind that should your country succeed, the same stigma will then befall you.

Yes, methinks the green monster has been revealed.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
What would you propose to be the reason that the USA consumes so much energy?

There are many factors that play into our energy consumption to be sure.Do you honestly believe that the examples you provide in order to try to prove the USA is entitled to consuming something along the lines of 30% of the worlds resources is legitimate?

I think this argument is exactly like the math you used in this thread. It is biased, faulty, and in adequate to prove the point you are attempting to prove.

Could it be that we produce food for the entire world?

This could would be part of it for sure. However, does it excuse the fact that we currently waste 40% of our food supply in the USA? Link

While we produce 58% more agricultural exports than the next largest producer (2003-2004) Link which was France, we consume 58% more energy percapita Link

So if it were simply a matter of matching the dollar amount of exports to the discrepancy in energy consumption, then sure, we would be without fault, but it is not that simple.

Could it be that we (once) produced products for the entire world?

In what way does this support our current use of energy?

Could it be that we maintain military aid (albeit a lot of it extraneous or even counterproductive) for the entire world?

The DoD's total primary energy consumption in Fiscal Year 2006 was 1100 trillion Btu. It corresponds to only 1% of total energy consumption in USA. For those of you who think that this is not much then read the next sentence.

Nigeria, with a population of more than 140 million, consumes as much energy as the U.S. military.

Link

Ya so 1% of our energy. And still no excuse. . .

Could it be that the USA was the epicenter of the Industrial Revolution, which makes it responsible for all of the modern conveniences?

How so? CHINA and the rest of the east are mostly responsible for modern conveyances, not the USA.

Could it be that the citizens of the USA worked long and hard to make the above true? Remember that the USA is a relatively young country compared to many, and was started by groups of outcasts and felons.

And so we should not consider any limitations to how much we use? Really?

And finally, could it be that I detect jealousy in your post?

Oh please, tell me what I am jealous of?

I do believe you have just made me realize something... yes, as pointed out in the OP, anthropogenic carbon dioxide cannot account for large temperature rises. But attempts to stop such can account for economic misery for the USA. Is that what this is about? Do you hate us so much that you would do anything, even perpetuate a lie that could harm you as well, to see us suffer? Keep in mind that should your country succeed, the same stigma will then befall you.

Wow, I would never have thought you would stoop to such a low level Red. Do you really think I hate the USA because I care about the environment?

A poorly constructed plan to reduce consumption and waste could cause misery, well planed ones would not. I do not believe I am perpetuating a lie either mate. Just because you whipped up a calculation to 'prove' the theory wrong does not mean you are right. In fact the majority here who were capable of understanding your work criticized it for inconsistencies and inaccuracies. No big surprise really.

You can try to make this about how anyone concerned about the human impacts on the environment being somehow hateful and bad but this is nothing more than a straw man.

My assertion that because we live on a finite planet with a finite ability to produce raw materials and absorb wastes and therefore we should consider our actions (consumption and waste) in order to make room for everyone indefinitely in no way makes me hateful, I would assert the opposite.

Yes, methinks the green monster has been revealed.

TheRedneck

I think what has been revealed is your desperation to cling to a dying paradigm. While it may some day be shown that there is no human link to climate change that will not eliminate the fact that the planet is straining under the burden of supplying humanity with our even most basic needs. Like it or not we are faced with an environmental crisis and there is no way to skirt this reality. Draw up all the mathematical models you want this fact will not change.

So yes, if by green monster you mean a new paradigm and subsequent changes in behavior that prolong our ability to survive on this planet, you are correct.

[edit on 3-12-2009 by Animal]

reply to post by Animal

Do you honestly believe that the examples you provide in order to try to prove the USA is entitled to consuming something along the lines of 30% of the worlds resources is legitimate?

What I believe in this respect is that the more work one does, the more energy is required. It's the same principle as driving a car. The farther you drive, the more fuel is required.

This could would be part of it for sure. However, does it excuse the fact that we currently waste 40% of our food supply in the USA?

No, it does not. However, it also does not follow that anti-environmentalism is responsible for that waste.

Consider this: every day buffets all across America throw away tons of food, for the simple reason that they are closing for the day and the food has not been consumed by customers. That is, IMO, a crime against nature! But the reason is not that the restaurants in question want people to go hungry: it is that they cannot afford to give the food to those who cannot pay. It is literally much cheaper to destroy it. Should that food be taken by someone who is, say, homeless (as used to happen), that homeless person could become sick from any source and still blame their sickness on the restaurant. In the courts, the awards have been so great in such cases that today, restaurants have decided that in order to survive, they cannot take the chance.

Now exactly what does this have to do with environmentalism? This is a societal issue that needs to be resolved. We won't fix it by making things more expensive... we will only make more hungry people needing food they cannot hope to have.

While we produce 58% more agricultural exports than the next largest producer (2003-2004) which was France, we consume 58% more energy percapita

58% more production, 58% more energy required. So?

In what way does this [past production] support our current use of energy?

It doesn't support it, but it does explain it. We have advanced socially to the point where at one time our energy usage was in line with our production. The reason our production has decreased is in large part due not to laziness of the American worker, but due to government regulation driving factories to other countries.

Ironically, a lot of this regulation has been in the name of 'environmentalism'.

Ya so 1% of our energy. And still no excuse. . .

Notice the word "primary". That does not include manufacture of equipment, nor does it include energy usage from military contractors.

Perhaps that is why your link seems to contradict itself.

FACT 11: Since the military's war machines burns fuel at such intense rates, it becomes impractical to talk about consumption in miles per gallon. That is why fuel use in military applications is shown in "gallons-per-mile," "gallons-per-hour," and "barrels-per-hour."

Here are some examples: Flying gas-guzzling bomber B-52 burns about 3300 gallon per hour, flying gas stations KC-135 and KC-10 (aerial refueling tankers) burn on average 2650 and 2070 gallons per hour respectively. Famous F-15 and F-16 fighter aircrafts burn about 1580 and 800 gallons per hour respectively.

Armored vehicles have very low fuel efficiency. For instance the Abrams tank can travel less than 0.6 mile per gallon of fuel, and Bradley fighting vehicle less than 2 miles on a gallon of fuel.

High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle (often called Humvee in military circles), which replaced World war II ear Jeep two decades ago, gets as few as 4 miles per gallon in city driving and 8 miles per gallon on the highway. In comparison, Ford's Model T got 25 miles per gallon, and today a Ford Explorer gets 18 miles per gallon.

Source: www.energybulletin.net...

They don't use much energy, yet they are involved in too many operations and use the least fuel-efficient vehicles on Earth.... hmmm...

Oh, and you are aware of Al Gore's personal energy budget, correct?

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh - more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh-guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore's average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore's energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Source: www.snopes.com...

It seems to me that maybe, just maybe, it's not the average Americans using all this energy... but they should be punished for it, apparently.

How so? CHINA and the rest of the east are mostly responsible for modern conveyances, not the USA.

Was the first television developed in China?
Was the first automobile assembly line developed in China?
Was the first telephone developed in China?
Was the first rocket developed in China?
Was the laser developed in China?
Was the first commercial solar cell developed in China?
Was the first commercial wind farm developed in China?

Sure, China is producing those things now, and their energy use has grown exponentially since they started. Strangely enough, the bulk of that growth is in the two 'evils' that environmentalists wish to be wiped out in the USA: oil and coal.

Despite the economic slowdown in exports and domestic demand in the past year, China’s demand for energy remains high. China has emerged from being a net oil exporter in the early 1990s to become the world’s third-largest net importer of oil in 2006. Natural gas usage in China has also increased rapidly in recent years, and China has looked to raise natural gas imports via pipeline and liquefied natural gas (LNG). China is also the world’s largest producer and consumer of coal, an important factor in world energy markets.

...

Coal supplied the vast majority (70 percent) of China’s total energy consumption requirements in 2006. Oil is the second-largest source, accounting for 20 percent of the country’s total energy consumption. While China has made an effort to diversify its energy supplies, hydroelectric sources (6 percent), natural gas (3 percent), and nuclear power (1 percent) account for relatively small amounts of China’s energy consumption mix.

Source: www.eia.doe.gov...

It would appear that China is not the energy utopia after all.

And so we should not consider any limitations to how much we use? Really?

No, we shouldn't. Would we have a telephone if Alex Bell had thought "I shouldn't be experimenting; it uses too much energy"? Would we have lasers if no one had used energy to develop them? Would our food production not decrease if we didn't want to burn the diesel to farm the land?

The only limitations needed are the natural, economically regulated (through supply and demand and production cost) energy prices.

Do you really think I hate the USA because I care about the environment?

No, I believe it because of this statement:

Originally posted by Animal
Though this means arguing for nations such as the USA to work on reducing consumption so that there is more to go around.

Why would you single out the USA in that? Check out the per-capita energy uses of the UAE and Qatar... much higher than ours. China, while the per-capita usage may be power (how much poverty among the lower class exists there?) is still rapidly approaching the USA in total energy consumed. Yet, it's the mean old USA, with the regulations already strangling the economy, 15 ppm maximum sulfur diesel, high-efficiency heating and cooling, and an automotive industry that can barely survive due to exhaust emission requirements, that must be stopped before they pollute again!

In fact the majority here who were capable of understanding your work criticized it for inconsistencies and inaccuracies. No big surprise really.

No big surprise to me either. However, no one has yet to show calculations that disprove mine. The complaints so far:

• My use of too many decimal places. Yep, admitted. Bad form, but that does not discredit the calculations.
  
  
• Concerns over the amount of carbon dioxide used. While I understand the concerns, the correct value is 100 ppmv, the anthropogenic (man-made) portion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
  
  
• Concerns over the omission of the land masses from the specific heat calculations. This was an admitted fudge in the OP which indicates the actual results would be less than what was calculated, not more.
  
  
• Concerns over why the ocean was even used as a heat sink, or what portion of the oceans should be used. I maintain my position on that.
  
  
• Concerns over how much solar irradiation would be absorbed by the carbon dioxide. My calculations used a conservative value of 100% absorption and 0% emission. If someone wants to show that carbon dioxide absorbs more than 100% of the available energy or that it emits less than 0% of that energy, I am certainly ready to see it.
  
  
• Accusations that I, by by some virtue I do not understand (my screen name perhaps?
  ) do not 'know what I am talking about'.

Did I leave anything out?

My assertion that because we live on a finite planet with a finite ability to produce raw materials and absorb wastes and therefore we should consider our actions (consumption and waste) in order to make room for everyone indefinitely in no way makes me hateful, I would assert the opposite.

That statement I can agree with. I simply tire of the constant misrepresentation of the USA when it comes to energy usage. Overall, we are among the most efficient of the industrialized nations on the planet. it would be nice if for once we weren't vilified for it.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


Well there will be no convincing you, and many like you. That really is too bad. I like how you can justify 5% of the worlds population using 30% of the worlds resources. It is interesting. Perhaps you could develop an equation that explains how this is in fact not in any way a problem for the planet or the organisms and systems that exist on the planet. It shouldn't be hard, right?

I mean after all as long as you be sure to include our right to these resources based on the fact that we are the originators of the worlds modern conveniences and past producer of the majority of it's goods, heck ya, everything should be swell Bever. I mean there is nothing ethnocentric and egotistical about any of these assumptions is there?

You assume we can continue down the same path we are on with out making changes and the 'economy' will keep everything in line. Interesting, seeing as how it really has done a fairly poor job up until today.

Your claims, the same made by many before you are equally sad and laughable.

[edit on 3-12-2009 by Animal]

To Animal and Redneck...

Honestly I see it as a mute point.

Yes the USA is responsible for a great deal of, if not the lions share of innovation, food production, military aid etc..

Whether the USA's aggregrate "carbon footprint" is warranted is irrelevant.

It is unsustainable. The world population is about 6.8 Billion right now, a steady climb since the "black Death" of around 1400.

I am 40 years old and the world population has doubled in my lifetime thus far. DOUBLED in just my lifetime..and there is a fixed (arguably shrinking) amount of land/climates/regions suitable for agriculture..

The land mass that we do occupy is experiencing unpredictable and severe weather patterns, thus further straining world food production.

Hydroponics won't cut it at the scale our population is growing.

Conservative consumption, reduced waste and energy efficiency and YES clean energy technologies are a MUST for us to live a quality exisitence in the future.

Sea levels are rising...you can debate the causes...either way there is shrinking land mass and the land that is left is experiencing more severe weather patterns.

More people...unpredictable crops..less land and water resources.

Climate refugees
Water wars

These are not just premises for science fiction movies anymore.

Seriously, we can take steps now or later...but later comes with a greater cost to our security and economy.

If the USA wants to be the world leader we have been in the past then lets get off our ass and do it. Right now...China, of all countires is leading the world with clean technology and envirornmental initiatives....and they aren't doing it for the good of the world or their people. China is self-serving. Ask yourselves why China is doing it?

The GW debate got recruited into our very American "culture wars"...left vs right...dem/rep...yada, yada. The rest of the world appropriately doesn't get what we are arguing about, but they still aren't going to fully take the leap until we do..

China knows this isn't a debate at all...it is simply the future of the world and they are capitalizing on our inaction.

So yes, we lead the world in many ways...and sometimes thats the problem.


[edit on 3-12-2009 by maybereal11]

reply to post by Animal

As there will be no convincing you.

But in the end, maybereal11 is correct; this is a moot point. Pointing fingers at each other only serves to get fingers slapped. If there is a problem, arguing over who or what is responsible based on propaganda and faulty information is about as productive as trying to milk a bull. All you get is a confused bull and no milk.

What should be done is to look at facts... cold, hard, unemotional facts. This thread began with a look at facts, whether you choose to believe them or not. It shows that the carbon dioxide produced by man is not responsible for the warming being reported, so what is? Perhaps we should look in that direction before we resort to extreme poverty and lack of resources for the population, only to one day realize that carbon dioxide Cap & Trade has much in common with bleeding a patient during Medieval times. That is, it cures nothing but kills the patient.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


There are those that think Cap and Trade is a vehicle for opportunists to make billions and expand their power structure.

There are people who think Cap and Trade is a long overdue mechanism to return the cost of polluting to the polluters rather than subsidize corporations via individual medical costs or Government paid clean-ups.

There are people who think that Global Warming is a product of the earths natural cycles and those that argue it is man made.

I suspect everyone is a little bit right and a little bit wrong, but it is easier to argue in black and white terms.

I do know this. We have a growing problem and someone I respect once told me that the definition of insanity was to continue to do the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.

reply to post by maybereal11

I do know this. We have a growing problem and someone I respect once told me that the definition of insanity was to continue to do the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.

You are wise to respect them; that is a very good definition of insanity.

However, I do not agree there is a problem with the climate. Yes, we have seen some warming in recent times, but that warming trend has leveled off mover the past decade. We also know that global temperatures tended to rise and fall during historical times, even within the human timeframe. Greenland once was green and supported agriculture. Once the location where New York City sits today was buried under a mile of ice. These happened without human contribution to carbon dioxide levels.

So while I will agree that doing the same thing over and over is a good definition of insanity, the definition of uselessness is working to address a problem in a manner that cannot affect it.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck This thread began with a look at facts, whether you choose to believe them or not. It shows that the carbon dioxide produced by man is not responsible for the warming being reported

No, this thread began with an analysis based admittedly on wild averages, presumed mathematical relations, and crucial facts abandoned outright for the sake of simplicity.

In doing so, you arrived at a number that you were happy with, and most of the rest of the thread has been you either dismissing valid criticism of your method outright, or explaining why such things are irrelevant because you've been striving for simplicity (which, to be fair, is the same thing as dismissing valid criticism outright, because the result is the same. It's just a bit more polite.).

Your fact - based on your conclusion - is only a fact on a world with the dimensions you specify, is only a fact in a universe where the physical laws have been changed with regard to convection and the radiative forcing properties of CO2 among other things, and is only a fact in a world where ground and water have constant rates on heat absorption - ie. a world without seasons or weather of any kind. And it's only a fact on a planet with no night.

Don't you think any of that might be slightly problematic as far as your conclusion is concerned?

You've arrived at a conclusion. You've got a number, and despite the odd typo in your calculations, all your numbers do add up in the end. And well done, it's a good starting point. But it's not a "fact", because what you've modeled bears only the slightest resemblance to the physical parameters that exist in reality.

Originally posted by TheRedneck

However, I do not agree there is a problem with the climate.

First of all, your level of dedication, detail, conviction, and most of all the time and effort you have put into this thread is extraordinary and commendable. In fact I am in awe of it. So thank you for all that ... most of all thank you for giving us some much needed scientific and intellectual "meat" to bite into.

I am a math idiot (amongst other things) so I struggle with your computatiuns ... but regarding your above comment ...

I am weary of absolute statements ... after all, that's what got the "global warmists" into trouble no?

Debunking one theory is indeed hard, establishing another is much much harder, especially when one doesn't necessarily negate the other. We simply don't know all the variables, we can only calculate the ones we know.

You and I might have different degrees of suspicion on what may be going on ... but for my part, I simply go with I don't know. Alternatively, I also use the standard "yes with an "if" no with a "but" ...

PS. Obviously the above depends on what one's definition of "problem" is.

[edit on 3 Dec 2009 by schrodingers dog]

Red, I have an idea, do a new set of calculations while considering our suggestions.


And use scientific notation lol, 21 digits is not something i can compute at first glance.


I would contribute if I had time =\

reply to post by die_another_day



I am glad you brought that up.

I am indeed working on some new calculations. It is taking some time to complete, however, mostly in trying to locate specific data that doesn't appear to be compromised in some way. By that I mean it either conflicts with other reports or is thrown about in an obviously biased blog (and I look at bias in both directions).

truthquest, back on page 8, originally got me thinking about the possibility of re-calculation. There have been some concerns that, while I consider them insignificant, could be addressed to prove one way or another if they truly are insignificant.

So, yes, I am giving your idea much thought.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by Animal

I defiantly agree with you on first half of the above point, the environmental movement is without doubt focused on preserving the long term quality of life of all humans on planet Earth. Though this means arguing for nations such as the USA to work on reducing consumption so that there is more to go around. An argument that I believe to be at the heart of those who oppose the environmental movement(s).
................

Is that why so many evironmentalists put their flawed ideologies before the health, and lives of mankind?..

And how can environmentalists be "for the benefit of the Earth" if they want to sequester the MOST benefitial gas for ALL green biomass on Earth?...

The environmental movement STARTED in a good track, and then they went off tangent. They started making protests against oil by getting on large barges/boats and running those boats around off shore oil production rigs all day for days on end, meanwhile they SPENT barrels, upon barrels of diesel....

Every time they see a seal, or a polar bear on top of an iceberg they start back yelling "THEY ARE GOING TO DIE".....and then we find that even the people who took the pictures didn't think the polar bear, or seals were in trouble and it was just a new GREEN scam to get people to accept GREEN taxes on CO2, not to mention to get more contributions from gullible people, and for everyone to stop using their cars/trucks, and to do the mandates of the GREEN environmentalist movement....

Even the man who started Greenpeace has stated that the group is COMPLETELY POLITICAL, and has been corrupted.

Not to mention the dozens, upon dozens of "leader environmentalists who claim that in order for Earth to survive mankind must die", and these same people even state that there is a need to release plagues, and other calamities upon mankind to "save the Earth." This also seems to be what the Socialist Elites want since they keep talking about "population control by any means....."

The GREEN movement has been highjacked, and has been corrupted by power and what they want now is NOT for the benefit of mankind, nor even for the benefit of mother Earth.

I still believe in being environmentaly concious, but not at the cost of human lives, or at the cost of suffering of people.




[edit on 3-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by vox2442


How about you give us ONE research paper that proves atmospheric CO2 absorbs as much radiation as it is CLAIMED by the AGW proponents?...

All you will find are, and let me quote you "wild averages, presumed mathematical relations, and crucial facts abandoned outright for the sake of simplicity.".......

Arrhenius was WRONG, but the AGW proponents still claim he was right because you can't admit your arguments are based on nothing more than invalid assumptions, exagerations, and wild claims.

I do admit Arrhenius was right about ONE thing.... The Earth does get greener, and it provides more FOOD to mankind with HIGHER levels of atmospheric CO2.... But that's another fact about the statements Arrhenius made that the AGW proponents like to ignore....

[edit on 3-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

@TheRedneck

Great post, very thought provoking.

I shall respond with constructive critiques (for additive, instead of subtractive purposes)

The earth is an average of 6371 km[4], with a troposhere layer surrounding it that averages 17km in height[5], which also must be included since it is the location of the atmospheric carbon dioxide. That means a circular area of

r = 6371 + 17 = 6388 km

A = π r² = π (6388)² = 128,197,539 km²

First off, the light reaching earth follows one of several paths:

A. It strikes the atmosphere, passing through it (outer troposphere surrnouding the earth, paralell to the lights path) It heats the air slightly, but does not strike the earth, and continues into space.

B. Noonday sun; Light passes through the atmosphere, strikes the ground, clouds, water, etc...

Some is energy is absorbed in the atmosphere, some is absorbed by the land, some is reflected by the land, and some of the reflected (or radiated) energy would be absorbed by the atmosphere as it passes back into space.

Now, the amount of energy that is absorbed by the atmosphere is dependent upon what angle the sunlight is passing through it.

Directly overhead, you have 17 or so kilometers, and then 17 kilometers back into space, assuming the reflection or re-emission is straight up.

At an angle, the distance passing through the atmosphere is greater, and thus, the atmospheric absorption is greater.

Now let us turn to the question of how much energy is needed to increase global temperatures.

Well... this one is interesting, actually...

Thermodynamics (Specifically dealing with Black Body Radiation) states that the hotter an object is, the greater its release of electromagnetic radiation (Heat energy) as determined by the spectral frequency of light being emitted.

Thus, the hotter the atmosphere gets, the more heat it releases, and the cooler it is, the less energy it releases.

Same with the ground, the water, etc...

So, an increase in atmospheric temperature, would actually accompany an increase in the earths infrared "Heat Sink", venting more energy into space.

Now, remember from earlier calculations the total amount of energy that is available from the solar irradiance that can intercept anthropogenic carbon dioxide:

The earth (as it cools, like at night) also gives off infrared that could be absorbed by Carbon Dioxide... although, it is probably insignificant next to solar radiance.

Overall, I agree... great post.


-Edrick

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by Animal

I defiantly agree with you on first half of the above point, the environmental movement is without doubt focused on preserving the long term quality of life of all humans on planet Earth. Though this means arguing for nations such as the USA to work on reducing consumption so that there is more to go around. An argument that I believe to be at the heart of those who oppose the environmental movement(s).
................

Is that why so many evironmentalists put their flawed ideologies before the health, and lives of mankind?..

Actually if you payed attention to what I was saying you would realize it is the OPPOSITE of your above assertion hat environmentalists strive for...

And how can environmentalists be "for the benefit of the Earth" if they want to sequester the MOST benefitial gas for ALL green biomass on Earth?...

Yawn. . .Nope, not even close, just more of the same old fanatical opposition. . .

The environmental movement STARTED in a good track, and then they went off tangent. They started making protests against oil by getting on large barges/boats and running those boats around off shore oil production rigs all day for days on end, meanwhile they SPENT barrels, upon barrels of diesel....

OH MY GOD, REALLY?!?! Well that just puts a nail in the old 'lets take care of the environment coffin' now doesn't it?

Every time they see a seal, or a polar bear on top of an iceberg they start back yelling "THEY ARE GOING TO DIE".....and then we find that even the people who took the pictures didn't think the polar bear, or seals were in trouble and it was just a new GREEN scam to get people to accept GREEN taxes on CO2, not to mention to get more contributions from gullible people, and for everyone to stop using their cars/trucks, and to do the mandates of the GREEN environmentalist movement....

If you say it it must be true, right?

Even the man who started Greenpeace has stated that the group is COMPLETELY POLITICAL, and has been corrupted.

Greenpeace is much like Al Gore to you and yours, a straw-man.

Not to mention the dozens, upon dozens of "leader environmentalists who claim that in order for Earth to survive mankind must die", and these same people even state that there is a need to release plagues, and other calamities upon mankind to "save the Earth." This also seems to be what the Socialist Elites want since they keep talking about "population control by any means....."

New to me, how about a link to these 'leaders' . . .

The GREEN movement has been highjacked, and has been corrupted by power and what they want now is NOT for the benefit of mankind, nor even for the benefit of mother Earth.

Well like i already said, if you said it, it must be true.

I still believe in being environmentaly concious, but not at the cost of human lives, or at the cost of suffering of people.

The most pathetic, weak, ignorant, and spun out argument against protecting hte environment EVER told.

I work to protect environmental integrity not only because I believe that as the most intelligent species we are in fact stewards of the Earth but also because the Earth is our HOME and with out it we would be homeless, (ie) DEAD. . . .

To be an environmentalist in no way ='s being anti-human. please. . .

reply to post by Animal

To be an environmentalist in no way ='s being anti-human. please. . .

Perhaps a definition of exactly what an 'environmentalist' is for is in order. Since you appear to be the presently most outspoken environmentalist here, I will ask you, Animal.

1. What chemicals in your personal opinion are the most dangerous to the environment?
   
   
2. Do you believe carbon dioxide levels of 380 ppmv are dangerous to life?
   
   
3. Do you believe carbon dioxide levels of 380 ppmv are dangerous to social life as we know it?
   
   
4. Do you support increasing the biosphere greenery (trees, bushes, green plants of any kind) to counter carbon dioxide levels?
   
   
5. What other methods do you believe are necessary to protect the environment?
   
   
6. What level of taxation do you believe is acceptable to implement these methods?
   
   
7. How much trust do you have in our governments to properly implement these taxes toward the environmental solutions you support?

Now I know you and I tend to get all defensive on such discussions, but I am asking this in all seriousness. I would appreciate serious answers.

TheRedneck