Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Environmentalism

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by marktwain View Post

    Good point.
    We may be better off, in the short run, to balance the effects of global warming with sulphate aerosol dispersion into the troposphere, which dissipates in 5- 7 yers, IIRC. This buys some time.
    There are so many early, but encouraging lines of investigation these days. It could be a new golden age of development if we could only loosen our grip on oil, just a little. It's not a "stop using oil altogether" proposition.

    But some actions that could have big impacts are already underway. The war on poverty and the education and empowerment of women throughout the world, for example. Both actions have been shown to have a direct impact on fertility rates.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by marktwain View Post

      OK
      Five years ago I discounted the effect of the [email protected] atmospheric loading too.
      where I DIFFER FORM OTHER some AGW people, to a degree, is the solution paths.

      Its a cost trade off.
      to back up a little, picture the C02 the Ch4, and other forcing factors as short term capacitor batteries. They absorb Ir and Radiative energy, then discharge it, -either by colliding with other molecules of O2 and N2, or by photon discharge- some at other similar gas molecules, some radiated out to space - some back to the earth. This is the energy overload. Then they recharge, and the process repeats. Quickly.

      That's a very basic description.
      On the Macro level, you have this:

      Have to run, more later of balancing forcing factors.
      Hope this helps.
      Might have helped you, but not me.

      For a start, once we discount water vapor, which can add from 10-20% more volume of greenhouse gas to the atmosphere, we are left with the CO2 which is about 0.04% of the dry part, that CH4 is about 0.0004% and things keep shrinking from there.

      Any IR that the CO2 or CH4 shed isn't being absorbed by the Argon, O2 or N2 (or so science tells us) and any IR reabsorb still amounts to the same net small quantity. "Shed" IR just joins the other IR either coming down from the Sun or bouncing back up through the atmosphere. We still have one molecule that can only bump into a couple others of the 2,499 at any one time so kinetic or caloric energy from collisions is small and reducing.

      No matter how often the "recharge", net energy loaded into so few molecules in the total ratio remains the same.

      IR not absorbed by the surface; land and water, which bounces back towards space would continue on out from planet except for small amount retained, temporarily, by tiny amount of CO2, etc.

      Quantity is too small to produce the high quality you suggest.
      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

      Comment


      • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

        Might have helped you, but not me.

        For a start, once we discount water vapor, which can add from 10-20% more volume of greenhouse gas to the atmosphere, we are left with the CO2 which is about 0.04% of the dry part, that CH4 is about 0.0004% and things keep shrinking from there.

        Any IR that the CO2 or CH4 shed isn't being absorbed by the Argon, O2 or N2 (or so science tells us) and any IR reabsorb still amounts to the same net small quantity. "Shed" IR just joins the other IR either coming down from the Sun or bouncing back up through the atmosphere. We still have one molecule that can only bump into a couple others of the 2,499 at any one time so kinetic or caloric energy from collisions is small and reducing.

        No matter how often the "recharge", net energy loaded into so few molecules in the total ratio remains the same.

        IR not absorbed by the surface; land and water, which bounces back towards space would continue on out from planet except for small amount retained, temporarily, by tiny amount of CO2, etc.

        Quantity is too small to produce the high quality you suggest.
        quantum mechanics..It's counter intuitive. and works at molecular speed.Earth's infrared radiation would escape to space if there weren't greenhouse gas molecules in our atmosphere. Just as oxygen gas prefers the dark red photons, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases match with infrared photons. They provide the right amount of energy to shift the gas molecules into their higher energy level.

        Shortly after a carbon dioxide molecule absorbs an infrared photon, it will fall back to its previous energy level and spit a photon back out in a random direction. Some of that energy then returns to Earth's surface, causing warming.

        simplified, but readable
        https://www.thesciencethinkers.com/2...y-quantum.html
        The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

        Comment


        • Originally posted by marktwain View Post

          quantum mechanics..It's counter intuitive. and works at molecular speed.Earth's infrared radiation would escape to space if there weren't greenhouse gas molecules in our atmosphere. Just as oxygen gas prefers the dark red photons, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases match with infrared photons. They provide the right amount of energy to shift the gas molecules into their higher energy level.

          Shortly after a carbon dioxide molecule absorbs an infrared photon, it will fall back to its previous energy level and spit a photon back out in a random direction. Some of that energy then returns to Earth's surface, causing warming.

          simplified, but readable
          https://www.thesciencethinkers.com/2...y-quantum.html
          OMG!

          We've been thru these dozens of times and they all still fail to explain the volume aspect.

          For every one CO2 there are 2,499 of Argon, O2, N2, etc. that are also part of the warm (or cold, like at nights and in Winter weather) atmosphere. If they aren't absorbing IR ("can't"), wether "direct" or regurgitated by CO2, than how do these other 2,499 also get warm (or not).

          I'm suspecting microwaves might be a factor ... they do it if you put a cup of water in your microwave oven and zap it on high for a couple of minutes.

          And since there is about 250-500 molecules of water for every one of CO2, I'm betting that H2O is the larger source for gas component of atmospheric warming.

          Meanwhile, for planet as a whole, there is that hot molten core seeping heat up through the crusts and out vents on the ocean floors and through volcanoes, etc. and it looks like these may not have been fully factored in either.

          Notice here the temps in recent times higher than now;
          Easterbrook-Natural%20global%20warming.jpg
          https://iceagenow.com/
          Then there's this showing how often during past 10,000 years +/- it's been far hotter than now;
          6a010536b58035970c01630269573c970d-pi.png
          https://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6...269573c970d-pi

          Or this;
          6a010536b58035970c014e864d0e11970d-400wi.png

          Again;
          6a010536b58035970c01bb07ddce57970d-400wi.png

          More change not driven by human activity;
          6a010536b58035970c01543563f4be970c-pi.png

          I might be approaching post size limit so will pick this up in another one.






          Attached Files
          TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

          Comment


          • Unless you believe the people that put men on the moon are fake: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
            How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
            Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

            Comment


            • More on Ice Age factor of climate change;
              ice_ages1.gif

              ice_ages2.gif

              8gieqan4b5r21.jpg

              Uncommon-Core-Climate-Geological-Timescale.jpg


              As I go through these and the scores of others I haven't presented, I can see where there might be a case of coincidence once in a while between CO2 ppm and Temperatures, but not see a firm case for either CO2 driving temperatures or for human activity coming close to high temp levels of Nature in the past.

              TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                Unless you believe the people that put men on the moon are fake: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
                I think it's already been stated that NASA is not a trust worthy source of information.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                  OMG!

                  We've been thru these dozens of times and they all still fail to explain the volume aspect.

                  For every one CO2 there are 2,499 of Argon, O2, N2, etc. that are also part of the warm (or cold, like at nights and in Winter weather) atmosphere. If they aren't absorbing IR ("can't"), wether "direct" or regurgitated by CO2, than how do these other 2,499 also get warm (or not).

                  I'm suspecting microwaves might be a factor ... they do it if you put a cup of water in your microwave oven and zap it on high for a couple of minutes.

                  And since there is about 250-500 molecules of water for every one of CO2, I'm betting that H2O is the larger source for gas component of atmospheric warming.

                  Meanwhile, for planet as a whole, there is that hot molten core seeping heat up through the crusts and out vents on the ocean floors and through volcanoes, etc. and it looks like these may not have been fully factored in either.

                  Notice here the temps in recent times higher than now;
                  Easterbrook-Natural%20global%20warming.jpg
                  https://iceagenow.com/
                  Then there's this showing how often during past 10,000 years +/- it's been far hotter than now;
                  6a010536b58035970c01630269573c970d-pi.png
                  https://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6...269573c970d-pi

                  Or this;
                  6a010536b58035970c014e864d0e11970d-400wi.png

                  Again;
                  6a010536b58035970c01bb07ddce57970d-400wi.png

                  More change not driven by human activity;
                  6a010536b58035970c01543563f4be970c-pi.png

                  I might be approaching post size limit so will pick this up in another one.





                  Don't feel bad. Before I latched on to Quantum mechanics I was blaming witches, warlocks, hideous beasties, and things that go bump in the night...

                  One of the reasons that I favor atmospheric sulfate aerosols is that the effects are reversible .
                  The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                    Unless you believe the people that put men on the moon are fake: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
                    Most of "the people that put men on the moon" are retired and/or weren't involved in climate related projects of the past 40+ years.
                    Also data exclusion, mis-interpretation, mis-representation, etc. don't equate with "fake".

                    No disputing current CO2 levels from me, just dispute such are driving current "climate change / global warming" when records as shown in these charts show no linkage of CO2 to temperatures, nor that what Earth is experiencing now is so far from anything Nature has done in past.

                    Here's examples from another NASA article/link;


                    Not enough greenhouse effect: The planet Mars has a very thin atmosphere, nearly all carbon dioxide. Because of the low atmospheric pressure, and with little to no methane or water vapor to reinforce the weak greenhouse effect, Mars has a largely frozen surface that shows no evidence of life.
                    ...
                    Wouldn't matter what the composition of Mars' atmosphere, fact that it is about 1/100 the density of Earth makes close enough to vacuum that composition is moot.
                    ........................


                    Too much greenhouse effect: The atmosphere of Venus, like Mars, is nearly all carbon dioxide. But Venus has about 154,000 times as much carbon dioxide in its atmosphere as Earth (and about 19,000 times as much as Mars does), producing a runaway greenhouse effect and a surface temperature hot enough to melt lead.
                    ...
                    Here's a case of not saying enough that could be relevant (data exclusion). Looking down on our Solar System from the North Star, all major bodies(planets) orbit the Sun in a counterclockwise direction and they all rotate on their polar axis in a counter-clockwise direction, same as the Sun. This is the angular momentum factor one needs to apply in inter-planetary spacecraft trajectories for example.

                    Venus is a notable exception. It rotates on it's axis "backwards"; clockwise. A slow rotation admittedly but a curious condition. One probable explanation would be near passage encounter with a very massive body/object, or some quirky impact event; either which basically flipped the whole mass of the planet 180 degrees and left it's inertial angular momentum "upside down".

                    It would involve MASSIVE energy for such to occur and that is the more likely source of the heat on Venus. Atmosphere composition a likely result of such a topsy-turvy event.

                    There is something similar to support this in planet Uranus which has one pole pointing almost directly to the Sun as it revolves around the Sun seeming to roll on it's 'equator'.

                    https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

                    Last edited by G David Bock; 18 Feb 20, 19:13.
                    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                      Notice here the temps in recent times higher than now;
                      Easterbrook-Natural%20global%20warming.jpg
                      https://iceagenow.com/

                      Then there's this showing how often during past 10,000 years +/- it's been far hotter than now;
                      6a010536b58035970c01630269573c970d-pi.png
                      https://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6...269573c970d-pi
                      Did you happen to notice that the legends on the graph show that this data is for Greenland, and not for the planet?

                      These graphs are part of Easterbrooks work, which has already been debunked by actual climate scientists.
                      And here.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by marktwain View Post

                        Don't feel bad. Before I latched on to Quantum mechanics I was blaming witches, warlocks, hideous beasties, and things that go bump in the night...
                        You might as well go back to those as you still haven't shown how Quantum Mechanics explains everything these charts show. (BTW, there are scores more I could have presented.)

                        Originally posted by marktwain View Post
                        One of the reasons that I favor atmospheric sulfate aerosols is that the effects are reversible .
                        Some of us don't see slight global warming as a "problem" to "correct", especially when as shown above, it has been far more intense in the past and Life still survived, if not thrived. Longer and warmer Summers and that second crop my fig tree puts on might have a chance to grow and ripen.

                        "If it ain't broke don't fix it."

                        Despite climate expert Al Gore's claims, the "debate" is far from settled and with so much more still to learn and understand about climate, tinkering and "geo-engineering" would not be advisable yet (if ever). I suggest you put your "atmospheric sulfate aerosols" up some opening where the Sun don't shine.

                        Last thing we need to do is accidentally trigger something like this;

                        glaciation.gif


                        rDFlnISMeMRyCIiYZzpe48gfEo0tnIJQ1ByZjZMohrl8p0P7TtFo2wnfuA9HctQHFBFRKx3bOFDNxNf85lpRy_czAe_24PALxwUtVDgkp0n34FKbi7f5H6T_WmnDOwd2j_NwPhA9QZEXpkFmggLerciy99U.gif
                        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by DingBat View Post

                          Did you happen to notice that the legends on the graph show that this data is for Greenland, and not for the planet?

                          These graphs are part of Easterbrooks work, which has already been debunked by actual climate scientists.
                          And here.
                          Have you noticed that Greenland is where many of the ice cores used by the pro-ACC/AGW for their scam come from? I provided plenty others that are more "planetary" in scale.

                          "Actual climate scientists" with a pro-ACC/AGW agenda are hardly objective sources. There remains scores of other and similar charts that track the same.
                          TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                            Most of "the people that put men on the moon" are retired and/or weren't involved in climate related projects of the past 40+ years.
                            Also data exclusion, mis-interpretation, mis-representation, etc. don't equate with "fake".

                            No disputing current CO2 levels from me, just dispute such are driving current "climate change / global warming" when records as shown in these charts show no linkage of CO2 to temperatures, nor that what Earth is experiencing now is so far from anything Nature has done in past.

                            Here's examples from another NASA article/link;


                            Not enough greenhouse effect: The planet Mars has a very thin atmosphere, nearly all carbon dioxide. Because of the low atmospheric pressure, and with little to no methane or water vapor to reinforce the weak greenhouse effect, Mars has a largely frozen surface that shows no evidence of life.
                            ...
                            Wouldn't matter what the composition of Mars' atmosphere, fact that it is about 1/100 the density of Earth makes close enough to vacuum that composition is moot.
                            ........................


                            Too much greenhouse effect: The atmosphere of Venus, like Mars, is nearly all carbon dioxide. But Venus has about 154,000 times as much carbon dioxide in its atmosphere as Earth (and about 19,000 times as much as Mars does), producing a runaway greenhouse effect and a surface temperature hot enough to melt lead.
                            ...
                            Here's a case of not saying enough that could be relevant (data exclusion). Looking down on our Solar System from the North Star, all major bodies(planets) orbit the Sun in a counterclockwise direction and they all rotate on their polar axis in a counter-clockwise direction, same as the Sun. This is the angular momentum factor one needs to apply in inter-planetary spacecraft trajectories for example.

                            Venus is a notable exception. It rotates on it's axis "backwards"; clockwise. A slow rotation admittedly but a curious condition. One probable explanation would be near passage encounter with a very massive body/object, or some quirky impact event; either which basically flipped the whole mass of the planet 180 degrees and left it's inertial angular momentum "upside down".

                            It would involve MASSIVE energy for such to occur and that is the more likely source of the heat on Venus. Atmosphere composition a likely result of such a topsy-turvy event.

                            There is something similar to support this in planet Uranus which has one pole pointing almost directly to the Sun as it revolves around the Sun seeming to roll on it's 'equator'.

                            https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
                            Quite interesting. IIRC, there is an alternate theory that Venus gets its heat from Solar radiation over a long period of time, but , as you have repeatedly pointed out:
                            " Who the heck am I to know from anything?"
                            The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                            Comment


                            • Or....

                              Why Venus Spins the Wrong Way

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X