Lets finish this! Numbers do not lie.

reply to post by TheRedneck
Well, I certainly am not going to crunch your numbers. Nor will I argue with them. I have always believed that if there are substantial temperature variations on our planet, it would be because of variations in the heat source, the sun. If anyone believes that the energy output of the sun is constant, I they live in a fantasy land. What truly saves our @sses is the fact that we are 93 million miles away from it.



[edit on 2-12-2009 by butcherguy]

[edit on 2-12-2009 by butcherguy]

IT'S NOT CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2);
IT'S CARBON MONOXIDE (CO)


[edit on 2-12-2009 by DjSharperimage]

All I can say is bravo and I agree with everyting you have posted, Climate change has always been a myth perpatrated to raise money and fear monger.

its funny no ones pointed out that going by these calcations not only will the earth not get hotter but theres not enough energy recived to even keep it above frezzing with his model the earth wont have a heating problem its would be a giant ice cube .
if 100out of 386 only inparts .0001 heat energy into earths air then the total will not impart enough to keep the planet warm to any degree.
wed all be popsicles.
and i for one am glade your all so detearmed to disprove warming because if some ginea ever granted your excat wished wed be froz fryed taking over by reptiles . be living on a planet basketball.
may the fours be with you . personly i find he a very calcating person.

I think of all the years I spent at universitites. I studied consistently, researched, read, wrote. Grades were stellar. You would think there would have been something along the way that would have enabled me, or at least contributed to my being able to understand this OP. SOME snatch of SOMETHING, somewhere.

Sadly, no. It's disgusting I tell you. Sad and disgusting.

very fascinating...but if you can sit there and come to such an amazing conclusion with so much evidence....why cant the worlds smartest minds and best scientists do that?

Very good job RN. But let's cut to the chase, man made or not - Do you think the planet is getting warmer? I am concerned with the polar caps. They are melting and the water is moving over the globe in the form of additional rain.

Thoughts?

Redneck used a very simple method – actual calculations -- to prove that all these foxie politicians are lying blantly all the time.
It also proves all these enviromental special figures like Al Gore are into this only because of their greed for money and power!!!
So there we have others, politician, political parties, religion leader and other public figures showing interest into it because they have a share of money and power !!! and if they don’t participate they might loose IT !!!
Thank you Redneck !!! and I rephrase your title Lets finish THEM.

Originally posted by fisheye
Very good job RN. But let's cut to the chase, man made or not - Do you think the planet is getting warmer? I am concerned with the polar caps. They are melting and the water is moving over the globe in the form of additional rain.

Thoughts?

According to the recent developement of "climategate" the Earth is actually getting colder now.

You make a good point joey. But when ice melts it has a tendency to cool its surroundings as the water flows over it (rain). Red Neck’s formula is sound, but something is melting the caps. What and why?

reply to post by fisheye

The planet was getting warmer prior to 1998; that is pretty well established. But the data shows a more or less flat line in temperatures since then. My view is that we have seen a slightly accelerated sine wave in temperatures, which is now stabilizing.

As to the melting of the Arctic ice caps, that is pretty well established as well. It is also now well-known that there is volcanic activity on the Arctic seafloor, a good suspect as to why there is so much recent Arctic ice melt IMO. Antarctica seems to be wavering, loosing ice one year, gaining a bit back the next, losing a bit more... I really have no idea what the mechanism for that might be, or if there is anything strange even going on; reporting of climate issues has become extremely biased as of late.

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.

In any case, I would suggest that we are in for a decline in temperatures over the next few decades. I also believe that if we continue deforestation, that decline is going to be much more disastrous than it need be. Deforestation is one of the real problems facing the future of mankind, along with actual pollutants and general poor housekeeping.

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. In the end, the ecologists have it right; this is our only home, and we should take care of it. The only problem is that their message was hijacked by political greed and turned into the fiasco we call carbon dioxide Cap & Trade. Thus my title: "Let's Finish This!" Let's finish the hype and rumor and innuendo and get down to business. The planet is not going to melt; the planet will probably not freeze. It just needs a little TLC.

TheRedneck

This thread exemplifies whyi am so proud to be an ATS member.

Imagine if you took into account only the mass of the first 1' of soil. I bet it would change the requirement of Joules needed by a factor of ten.

Th

Good observation Red Neck, the temperature changes may have been coming from the subsurface of the planet and man is destroying the lungs of Mother Earth with deforestation. We have seen a lot of tectonic activity and I am sure this is playing a big part in the climate changes. If we can't take care of Mother Earth, she can not care of us.

reply to post by ladyinwaiting


I dont understand a word of it either, but I sense that its a really good OP

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Byrd

There's some interesting patterns.

Yes, there are, based primarily on differences in carbon dioxide production among different areas and prevailing wind patterns. But the principle is still relevant: there will be more solar rays that do not encounter carbon dioxide molecules than do encounter them, the difference being in proportion to the number of of carbon dioxide molecules in a given volume of air.

I also believe that you are modeling an atmosphere with even distribution of CO2 throughout it. This would not be correct, since it and a number of other gases (methane, notably) are actually heavier than oxygen and nitrogen and water vapor. It's not evenly distributed vertically just as it's not evenly distributed horizontally.

Taking the night side out of your calculations also skews it. We have coal based electrical plants that run 24 hours a day (same with factories, cars, and many other things. Cows on factory farms don't shut off for the night. Forests and the ocean absorb less CO2 when it's cold or when it's night.

I will try and find time to calculate for the different other pollutants. Since the number of pollutants is into the hundreds, perhaps a list of the ones people want to see would help?

The Wikipedia article listed the four or five major ones (including water vapor).

NASA has some data:
data.giss.nasa.gov...

SCIGEN has a modeler (haven't checked it)
www.cgd.ucar.edu...

Accurate data (as far as I can tell) on the increases is here:
www.agu.org...

Good discussion of models here:
www.drroyspencer.com...

1995 paper discussing model predictions (many of which have come true in the 19 years since it was written):
www.gcrio.org...

This (rather bad) paper goes into (eventually) some of the math needed, including a discussion of the Lorenz equation (which I hadn't mentioned)
www.maths.bath.ac.uk...

Wikipedia's got a reasonable discussion of models with links to some of the basic formulas:
en.wikipedia.org...

another one is here:
www.grida.no.../climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/308.htm

In brief, you need a four dimensional model with multiple variables (I'm guessing you'd eventually have to do matrix modeling en.wikipedia.org...(mathematics) ), which can be a real head-banger. The equations you found are a limited model with one variable, which has handed you the wrong end of the stick. It's kind of like telling you that all you need to count up the current fiscal debt are the numbers "one, two, and many."

The stuff isn't impossible to do, but it may take a week to get all the math straight (or longer, if you haven't had advanced math.)

Also not counted in the model you found (but more rigidly examined by scientists) is data from gardeners and farmers about changes in crop cycles and planting cycles and harvests. The model you found doesn't seem to take into account the oceans as heat and energy transfer engines and the driving force of weather.

There aren't any simple answers, but it's really encouraging to see someone start wading into the numbers rather than spouting off something they read. I hope the links I gave will give you enough of a background to start picking a more sophisticated multivariable model.

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
I think of all the years I spent at universitites. I studied consistently, researched, read, wrote. Grades were stellar. You would think there would have been something along the way that would have enabled me, or at least contributed to my being able to understand this OP. SOME snatch of SOMETHING, somewhere.

Sadly, no. It's disgusting I tell you. Sad and disgusting.

Probably depends on what you studied. I married a mathematician, so I had to learn horrid things like multivariate analysis and Forrier transforms just to be able to hold a dinner table conversation with the delightful man.

Climate analysis isn't a simple thing. It involves a lot of data, lots of chemistry, lots of physics, and a ton of advanced math (matrix analysis.) Makes my head spin, too... but I know enough about the graduate level math that I can follow an argument or understand when a model is a poor choice for analysis.

...but, then, I'm also an overeducated geek. We loves stuff like this, we does.

Originally posted by Silicis n Volvo
very fascinating...but if you can sit there and come to such an amazing conclusion with so much evidence....why cant the worlds smartest minds and best scientists do that?

They have, I even seen something on a documentary..national geo, possibly about it.

The truth is there if people get round believing the deliberately spread propaganda.

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by 4nsicphd

 

First a law professor now a commercial pilot? Excuse me? Just calling you out.

Are we now Lawman and Pro Pilot?

By the way OP, Followed your logic, did not confirm the numbers.

Will work through it later.

By the way, excellent S&F.

Oh and frack the people that think "normal" people cannot do the math.

Common sense and a little work is not that difficult.

[edit on 12/1/2009 by endisnighe]

Yeah, went to law school after leaving Southeast Asia and moving to the Reserves. Turns out not all Vietnam vets were PTSD wracked drug addled bums.. The experience flying twin engine jet fighters allowed issuance of Airline Transport Pilot, Commercial, Type Ratings, etc. Did and taught Aviation Law and Criminal Procedure. And after retireement, since colleges are where the pretty and smart women hang out, I went back to grad schoolfor Masters degrees in Physics (high energy particle) and Chemistry (P. Chem) and a PhD in Forensic Chemistry. Now I split my time between the US doing forensic consulting and part time Commercial flying (Part 135/91 and not 121) and Nevis/St. Kitts where I can work online and enjoy the citizenship in Nevis gained by building a home here. Anyone investing at least $250,000.00 in Nevis can gain citizenship. It's a nice fallback. Right now it's 81 F with a little shower that will be over by the time I finish my Carib. Don't have to be back in NYC till next week.
There are a lot of Commercial Pilots with law degrees. We were only flying 80 hours/month and with seniority a month's time could be dome with one weekend international turn every week. NYor ATL-Bangkok or Hong Kong or Vientienne and return can be 20 hours block time and 4 of those gives you your time. Having a client with a G-IIB-SP and a house on Nevis makes the commute easy and profitable. I'm out of rum. Time to go to Charlestown.

reply to post by erkokite

Wow!. I'm impressed. You get it. Absorption rates/wavelengths is a key that was missed in the OP. And not just optical. CO^2 has absorption peaks at 2.4and 4 microns, and a shoulder (Complete blockout at 13 microns.From this we see that carbon dioxide is a verystrong absorber of infrared radiation. Water vapor is even more so, with numerous broad peaks in the infrared, between 0.8 and 10 microns(After J. N. Howard, 1959: Proc. I.R.E. 47, 1459; and R. M. Goody and G.D. Robinson, 1951: Quart. H. Roy. Meteorol. Soc. 77, (153) (and not Wikipedia.)

reply to post by Byrd

I also believe that you are modeling an atmosphere with even distribution of CO2 throughout it. This would not be correct, since it and a number of other gases (methane, notably) are actually heavier than oxygen and nitrogen and water vapor. It's not evenly distributed vertically just as it's not evenly distributed horizontally.

Other than this being similar to the concern you had over distribution patterns, I fail to understand what you are saying. Of course any distribution is going to be in three dimensions, but CO2 will remain closer to the ground rather than aloft due to its density. Short of detecting the exact carbon dioxide level for every strata (which then begs the question of how thick to make each strata; 1 mm, 1 m, 1 km?) and totaling all those together (integration will not work without a mathematical curve to analyze, and atmospheric layers tend to be more chaotic than mathematical), I fail to see what you are suggesting. If that is your suggestion, then I respectfully submit that the average is exactly that: an average which already takes into account any local deviations.

Taking the night side out of your calculations also skews it. We have coal based electrical plants that run 24 hours a day (same with factories, cars, and many other things. Cows on factory farms don't shut off for the night. Forests and the ocean absorb less CO2 when it's cold or when it's night.

The total amount of carbon dioxide present does fluctuate; however we are discussing averages based on much longer periods than a single day and night. These daily differences will even out over a period of years. It is always night somewhere on the globe, and always daytime somewhere else.

A similar situation occurs during seasonal changes, as carbon dioxide absorption declines drastically during the winter relative to the summer. Yet, whole one hemisphere is absorbing at winter levels, the other is absorbing at summer levels. This will only make localized differences between the hemispheres and will cause no long-term deviations.

In more technical terms, you are discussing noise, rather than trends.

Thank you for the links. If I do delve into this aspect, I will probably do so using a formula that will allow whatever chemical being analyzed to be plugged into the equation.

Oh, and I did complete higher mathematics. 4.0 GPA

TheRedneck