No announcement yet.

The Environmentalism and Global Warming Thread

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

  • Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
    PART TWO ...

    Like a few here, you seem to have mis-gauged and inaccurately assessed those of us here whom might be classed as "skeptics/deniers" by the pro ACC/AGW mob.

    Let's start by pointing out that many to most of "us" classed as "skeptics/deniers" are not doing such towards the broad and general topic of climate change/flux, but rather with regard to the unproven hypothesis that what is currently happening is largely to mostly human-caused ~ anthropogenic.

    Also we are doubtful of and disputing the case that this is largely due to a slight increase of ratio of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) towards total atmospheric content, and supposedly of blame upon human origins/activities.

    When we see persons such as yourself and a couple others, especially some whom claim to have been career officers in the USA military, showing such lack of grasp upon basic sciences, etc., we are even more distressed and disappointed in what this says about the general knowledge of science (and technology) of such "officers" and what is implied about the condition of our nation's military.

    Between getting the general concepts wrong as well as the details on what should be basic science (physics, chemistry, biology) regards climate cycles/flux, some of us can't help wonder what else you have failed to get a proper grasp on. And of course, what this means in regards to our military and it's leadership knowing what they need to know to operate effectively in 21st century technology and situations.
    Last edited by G David Bock; 01 Feb 19, 16:16.


    • Some interruption by the contractor here to finish tile work on our kitchen remodel, so ...


      Seems many tend to have forgot, or never learned, that about four billion years ago when this world was in formative stages it had no free oxygen in the atmosphere and several times more carbon dioxide than now, YET this planet/world did not "get a fever", "over heat", and "burn up" as Al Goofball has been predicting; ...

      History of the Atmosphere
      Earth is believed to have formed about 5 billion years ago. In the first 500 million years a dense atmosphere emerged from the vapor and gases that were expelled during degassing of the planet's interior. These gases may have consisted of hydrogen (H2), water vapor, methane (CH4) , and carbon oxides. Prior to 3.5 billion years ago the atmosphere probably consisted of carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), water (H2O), nitrogen (N2), and hydrogen.
      The hydrosphere was formed 4 billion years ago from the condensation of water vapor, resulting in oceans of water in which sedimentation occured.

      The most important feature of the ancient environment was the absence of free oxygen. Evidence of such an anaerobic reducing atmosphere is hidden in early rock formations that contain many elements, such as iron and uranium, in their reduced states. Elements in this state are not found in the rocks of mid-Precambrian and younger ages, less than 3 billion years old.

      One billion years ago, early aquatic organisms called blue-green algae began using energy from the Sun to split molecules of H2O and CO2 and recombine them into organic compounds and molecular oxygen (O2). This solar energy conversion process is known as photosynthesis. Some of the photosynthetically created oxygen combined with organic carbon to recreate CO2 molecules. The remaining oxygen accumulated in the atmosphere, touching off a massive ecological disaster with respect to early existing anaerobic organisms. As oxygen in the atmosphere increased, CO2 decreased.

      High in the atmosphere, some oxygen (O2) molecules absorbed energy from the Sun's ultraviolet (UV) rays and split to form single oxygen atoms. These atoms combining with remaining oxygen (O2) to form ozone (O3) molecules, which are very effective at absorbing UV rays. The thin layer of ozone that surrounds Earth acts as a shield, protecting the planet from irradiation by UV light.

      The amount of ozone required to shield Earth from biologically lethal UV radiation, wavelengths from 200 to 300 nanometers (nm), is believed to have been in existence 600 million years ago. At this time, the oxygen level was approximately 10% of its present atmospheric concentration. Prior to this period, life was restricted to the ocean. The presence of ozone enabled organisms to develop and live on the land. Ozone played a significant role in the evolution of life on Earth, and allows life as we presently know it to exist.


      Current conditions;


      When Earth formed 4.6 billion years ago from a hot mix of gases and solids, it had almost no atmosphere. The surface was molten. As Earth cooled, an atmosphere formed mainly from gases spewed from volcanoes. It included hydrogen sulfide, methane, and ten to 200 times as much carbon dioxide as today’s atmosphere. ...


      • climate_1.jpg?resize=807x807.jpg
        "Ask not what your country can do for you"

        Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

        you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.


        • We are not now that strength which in old days
          Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
          Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
          To strive to seek to find and not to yield.


          • If my understanding is correct, the "argument" isn't whether or not global warming has occurred or is occurring. It's about what's causing it (to whatever extent it occurs). Or have I misunderstood the purpose of the thread?
            "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)


            • Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
              If my understanding is correct, the "argument" isn't whether or not global warming has occurred or is occurring. It's about what's causing it (to whatever extent it occurs). Or have I misunderstood the purpose of the thread?
              Climate change/flux has been a routine item for about 4 billion years now. During past few hundreds of thousands it has either been cooling into an Ice Age or warming out of one. So far we might still be warming out of the last Ice Age, it would seem.


              • Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
                Note that the air contained in the cold mass of the "Polar Vortex" still contains about 400ppm of CO2 and it's "trapped heat".


                • In the "Is there anything that can't be attributed to Gorebal Warming" category comes this tripe:


                  This is a paper that claims that evil White Europeans killing off the indigenous American population accelerated climate change as a result. It comes from "researchers" at the University College of London, part of the University of London, a very Leftist institution today.


                  • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                    In the "Is there anything that can't be attributed to Gorebal Warming" category comes this tripe:


                    This is a paper that claims that evil White Europeans killing off the indigenous American population accelerated climate change as a result. It comes from "researchers" at the University College of London, part of the University of London, a very Leftist institution today.
                    FYI & FWIW, there's a thread on this in the Science sub-forum;
                    The Great Dying


                    • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                      FYI & FWIW, there's a thread on this in the Science sub-forum;
                      The Great Dying
                      This paper proposes that killing off most of the indigenous population led to an increase in CO2 and climate change. I think they're full of it. Their premise was agriculture declined. I'd argue it increased, but took less land as the indigenous population primarily used slash and burn agriculture or similar primitive methods to grow crops. The Europeans introduced methods used in Europe. They cleared fields of trees and fenced them. They used crop rotation. They planted more intensively than the native population did. They also planted a wider variety of crops.
                      All of that led to increasing not decreasing agricultural usage, but possibly on less of a footprint of land. More intensive agriculture also led to greater population concentration. Primitive agricultural practices limited the size of organized villages and town the indigenous population could manage without overpopulation and the attendant problems of that.


                      • Archiving for readier reference;

                        However, looking over the past 4.4 billion years of Earth history and seeing the temperature versus CO2 levels and the non-linkage of CO2 to Temp. gives a better perspective on the so-called "science" of ACC/AGW;



                        • ditto;

                          Another chart showing more recent disconnect of CO2 to global temperatures;



                          • And another ...

                            So here's a "Bill Nye the (he's not a real) science guy" do at home experiment to show how Anthropogenic (human caused) Climate Change/Global Warming (ACC/AGW) is supposed to work, or doesn't.

                            The hypothesis is that Carbon Dioxide (CO2) levels having gone from around 280-300 ppm (parts per million -dry*) of the atmosphere about 200 years ago when the Industrial Age started, rising to about 400 ppm now, has caused the atmosphere(and planet**) to warm up by about 1-3 degrees F from back then.

                            Let's start with the basic math, arithmetic actually, which all of you should be able to do since this is pre-high school stuff. Divide that 1,000,000 (million) by 400 and you get a result of 2,500. So for every 2,499 molecules of Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, etc. in the atmosphere there is one molecule of Carbon Dioxide (CO2), and this one molecule of CO2 traps so much heat radiating from Earth's surface back towards outer space that it manages to also caused those other 2,499 parts to heat up, get warmer than they would normally be.

                            Most people with functioning common sense and a basic grasp of physics and chemistry should already be having a WTF moment on the clear non-logic of this hypothesis. However, as we see often, those afflicted with the mental illness of liberal, socialist, leftist mindset and (non)thinking tend to have their rational, logical, and reasonable mental capacities significantly diminished, so few ever have the capacity to reject this non-science(non-sense) hypothesis.

                            Here's the at home experiment to help prove or disprove the ACC/AGW hypothesis;

                            Take an empty, plastic two liter soda bottle and fill it with 2 liters of water (tap or distilled, your choice) and make sure the water is at 70 degrees F. Note that 2 liters = 2,000 milliliters(ml) so are base line of 2,500 ppm is reduced to an 80% level via the 2,000 ml. This 2,000ml represents the nitrogen, oxygen, argon, etc. of the atmosphere (the 99.96% everything other than CO2).

                            Next take 0.8ml of water, which represents our one part out of 2500 to represent the ratio of CO2 content. 0.8ml is almost a 1/4 teaspoon, so you can use that if you haven't a marked pipit handy. Heat this 1/4 teaspoon of water (representing CO2) to 75 degrees F and then quickly (before it can cool down much) pour it into the 2000ml at 70degree F content of you bottle. Mix thoroughly.

                            Note how much that slightly warmer 1/4 teaspoon of water at 75F has raised the temperature of the large 2000ml at 70F. Per the ACC/AGW hypothesis we should see at least 1/2 to 1 degree raise in temperature throughout the whole 2000 cooler water in the bottle.

                            Yup! I've yet to get that result, total heat increase, yet. I've yet to get any measurable heat increase in that 2000ml of cooler water, which represents the cooler air/atmosphere that the 0.04% of warmer CO2 is supposed to be warming.

                            * = the "dry" means we aren't including water vapor, H2O, which depending upon location, time of year/season, and other factors can be from 10-20% more of the atmospheric content. H2O is a more effective "greenhouse" gas and understood by some to be the real and major atmospheric warming component.

                            ** = Real science holds that it is Earth's surface, land and water mass, that tends to heat the atmosphere, not the other way around. So when Al Gore and other "experts" say the planet "has a fever" and warming atmosphere is going to burn up and destroy "the planet" it's highly probable they haven't a clue of what they are talking about.


                            • More from other thread needing "archive" here ...


                              CO2 Absorption Spectrum

                              There is no Valid Mechanism for CO2 Creating Global Warming

                              A small amount of something cannot heat a large amount of something without extreme differences in temperature which cannot exist in the atmosphere.

                              Heat cannot be trapped in the atmosphere, because it radiates away in femto seconds. Trapping Heat
                              If 5 air molecules radiate away the added energy, while one CO2 molecule absorbs, the added energy is gone and the other 2,495 air molecules surrounding each CO2 molecule are not affected.

                              All molecules vibrate constantly, which causes them to emit radiation constantly. That type of radiation is called infrared, black body radiation. The amount of radiation emitted depends upon the temperature. The Stefan-Boltzmann constant is used to indicate how much radiation is given off by matter at any temperature, though the constant is not accurate.
                              Absorption Peaks
                              Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of wavelengths, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM). This means that most of the heat producing radiation escapes it. About 8% of the available black body radiation is picked up by these "fingerprint" frequencies of CO2.

                              Several decades ago, before global warming was an issue, scientists concluded that carbon dioxide blocked 8% of the infrared radiation from going through the atmosphere. This is consistent with bandwidth. The width of the 15 micron peak is two microns wide from outer edges of shoulders.

                              The total range of infrared radiation, called black body radiation, is about 100 microns, tapering off after 50 microns. Black body radiation is all infrared radiation given off by matter. It increases with temperature.

                              A measured absorption spectrum is shown here. See an exactly measured 15 micron peak in Heinz Hug's paper.

                              Heinz Hug showed that carbon dioxide in the air absorbs to extinction at its 15µM peak in about ten meters. This means that CO2 does whatever it's going to do in that amount of space. Twice as much CO2 would do the same thing in about 5m. There's no significant difference between 5m and 10m for global warming, because convectional currents mix the air in such short distances.

                              Attempted Fix

                              This is nothing new. Climate scientists know that more CO2 does not result in more heat under usual conditions. So the mythologists among them try to salvage the global warming propaganda by pretending that something esoteric occurs higher in the atmosphere. The difference is that the absorption peaks for CO2 separate from the peaks for water vapor. Then supposedly, radiation which misses CO2 does not get picked up by water vapor and travels into outer space; and more CO2 causes less radiation to get missed on the shoulders of the peaks.

                              Everything about that rationalization stretches reality to a point of misrepresentation. The increase in CO2 levels could only be relevant for the last cycle of absorption near the outer edges of the atmosphere, where there is not enough influence of the lower atmosphere to be significant. But the rationalizers claim it is significant in the mid levels of atmosphere. Not so. Doubling the CO2 would only shorten the distance of radiation travel before total absorption occurs.
                              All biology is on the verge of becoming extinct due to a shortage of carbon dioxide in the air, which is needed for photosynthesis. There was five times as much CO2 in the air during dinosaur years, and twenty times as much when modern photosynthesis began.

                              CO2 History



                              • Interesting thing about this one is the same "voices" blaming current CO2 levels for warming, contradict that "case for" with this;

                                AND ...
                                IR Atmospheric Windows

                                The Universe sends us light at all wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum. However, most of this light does not reach us at ground level here on Earth. Why? Because we have an atmosphere which blocks out many types of radiation while letting other types through. Fortunately for life on Earth, our atmosphere blocks out harmful, high energy radiation like X-rays, gamma rays and most of the ultraviolet rays. It also block out most infrared radiation, as well as very low energy radio waves. On the other hand, our atmosphere lets visible light, most radio waves, and small wavelength ranges of infrared light through, allowing astronomers to view the Universe at these wavelengths.

                                Most of the infrared light coming to us from the Universe is absorbed by water vapor and carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere. Only in a few narrow wavelength ranges, can infrared light make it through (at least partially) to a ground based infrared telescope.



                                Latest Topics