Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Environmentalism and Global Warming Thread

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

  • Originally posted by marktwain View Post

    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?"
    Reg, no need to be so melodramatic. Likely more case of not being able to explain yourself and the concepts such that this country bumpkin can understand you.

    As for Venus and it's heat, could be a number of factors. Surface under those clouds looks rather rough and likely "volcanic" of sorts. The more intriguing is that "backward" rotation.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by DingBat View Post
      You just made me break my rule about clicking on blind links that don't include some excerpt of content and more detail on them and source. Now Scientific American has told me; You have 3 free articles left. (Won't be doing that with any of your posts any more)
      ...
      Relevant excerpt:
      ...
      Many scientists believe that the long days are a result of the sun's strong pull on the planet. (Mercury, which is even closer to Sol, has fairly long days as well: three for every two Mercury-years). But scientists are still puzzled by Venus's retrograde, or backward, rotation. Now a team of scientists from the French research institute Astronomie et Systemes Dynamiques have proposed a new explanation, published in this week's issue of Nature.

      Current theory holds that Venus initially spun in the same direction as most other planets and, in a way, still does: it simply flipped its axis 180 degrees at some point. In other words, it spins in the same direction it always has, just upside down, so that looking at it from other planets makes the spin seem backward. Scientists have argued that the sun's gravitational pull on the planet's very dense atmosphere could have caused strong atmospheric tides. Such tides, combined with friction between Venus's mantle and core, could have caused the flip in the first place.

      Now Alexandre Correira and Jacques Laskar suggest that Venus may not have flipped at all. ...
      ...
      https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ins-the-wrong/ (By Harald Franzen on June 15, 2001)

      Thing is, no one is sure how long Venus has had that very dense atmosphere. It could have been the product of that "close encounter". Meanwhile, this sounds like one of those stretch of imagination scientists can be prone to.
      Last edited by G David Bock; 18 Feb 20, 20:37.

      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 bet you think James bond is fiction, too....
        The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

        Comment


        • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

          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.)



          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
          You response is rather'special', to say the least.
          My argument, and it has been consistent, is that Sulphate seeding may be a better short term solution than drastic curtailment of fossil fuels.
          Your response is , unfortunately, typical . You really don't have to start a bizarre argument - but you do it, anyway.
          The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

          Comment


          • This is from the American Institute of Physics.
            I like it because it gives a good overview and potted history on how studies of CO2 evolved.
            https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm

            Comment


            • Originally posted by CarpeDiem View Post
              This is from the American Institute of Physics.
              I like it because it gives a good overview and potted history on how studies of CO2 evolved.
              https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm
              Wow, great article, CD. Adding it to the library.

              Comment


              • Normally, I'd shy away from passing on articles like this as it edges into policy, but it does represent a largish collection of peer reviewed articles. Still, provided for interest only.

                Virtually all the world’s demand for electricity to run transport and to heat and cool homes and offices, as well as to provide the power demanded by industry, could be met by renewable energy by mid-century. This is the consensus of 47 peer-reviewed research papers from 13 independent groups.

                Comment


                • How Warming Winters Are Affecting Everything

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by DingBat View Post
                    Could is not a serious argument.Neither is virtually .
                    It is also possible that it could not be met by renewable energy .
                    Besides, these 13 independent groups forget something important = that no one can forecast in 2020 the demand for electricity in 2050 .

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ljadw View Post

                      Could is not a serious argument.Neither is virtually .
                      It is also possible that it could not be met by renewable energy .
                      Besides, these 13 independent groups forget something important = that no one can forecast in 2020 the demand for electricity in 2050 .
                      Actually, they did not. If you read the articles and papers, they explicitly note that challenges in forecasting demand for energy. Investment in energy technologies leads to cheaper energy which leads to greater demand. This is recognized.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by ljadw View Post

                        Could is not a serious argument.Neither is virtually .
                        It is also possible that it could not be met by renewable energy .
                        Besides, these 13 independent groups forget something important = that no one can forecast in 2020 the demand for electricity in 2050 .
                        All forecasts are 'could'- or they would not be - 'forecasts.'

                        Anyhow, Sulphate aerosol injection into the Stratosphere. may go form being a promise to a dire necessity in the next decade. The increase in heat is close to making parts of outdoors iIdia uninhabitable by humans.

                        https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics...phate-aerosols

                        and a quicky wiki:

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strato...ulfur_aerosols
                        Last edited by marktwain; 19 Feb 20, 13:22.
                        The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                        Comment


                        • A post by G David Bock addressing a poster and not the post was removed.
                          thank you
                          ACG Staff

                          Comment


                          • I've suggested the elimination of jet contrails through a international program to route commercial jets around or above or below areas that they form. That is relatively easy to do, not very costly, and would soon (within a year or so) tell us how much actual effect contrails are having on anthropogenic warming.
                            If we find they were significant, it could substantially reduce the CO2 emissions push to more reasonable levels. It would also hammer a nail in the coffin that CO2 alone is the problem.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by marktwain View Post

                              You response is rather'special', to say the least.
                              The topic of this thread is rather "special", so similar response should be expected.


                              Originally posted by marktwain View Post
                              My argument, and it has been consistent, is that Sulphate seeding may be a better short term solution than drastic curtailment of fossil fuels.
                              And my argument(also been consistent) is that it was short term solutions that created this "mess" in the first place. Basically the whales weren't reproducing fast enough to supply the demand for their blubber used for a variety of products used in budding industrial age that had some looking elsewhere, hence the development of petroleum (and other "fossil fuels"=carbon resources) which resulted in an even larger range or products possible than whale blubber had provided.

                              However we had a case where 'feet first jump in' for short term solutions; based on limited knowledge and/or projection of consequences resulted in a chain of events and developments this past century and half which have helped bring us to this point.

                              One aspect has to do with use of coal for generation of electrical power. A byproduct in the smoke/flue of burned coal is sulfur dioxide which when combined with atmospheric water vapor chemically reacts to produce sulfuric acid which results in acid rain. So an early attempt to provide "clean coal" power was to develop;

                              Flue-gas desulfurization (FGD) is a set of technologies used to remove sulfur dioxide (SO2) from exhaust flue gases of fossil-fuel power plants, and from the emissions of other sulfur oxide emitting processes such as waste incineration.
                              ...
                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flue-gas_desulfurization

                              ... so what you are suggesting is to add sulfur to the atmosphere while others are doing their best to remove sulfur.

                              Originally posted by marktwain View Post
                              Your response is , unfortunately, typical . You really don't have to start a bizarre argument - but you do it, anyway.
                              Typical and consistent - looking at this situation in greater depth and detail than most responding here. Considering that the premise of ACC/AGW is bizarre and also the solutions advanced by some, there is a case for response in kind.

                              BTW: earlier attempt at a response got wiped, either by glitch of my computer or this forum so intended links to insert will now be presented in other posts to follow.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by CarpeDiem View Post
                                This is from the American Institute of Physics.
                                I like it because it gives a good overview and potted history on how studies of CO2 evolved.
                                https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm
                                Doesn't jive with this;

                                6a010536b58035970c0120a62f8216970c-pi.png

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X