Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,809 Year: 3,066/9,624 Month: 911/1,588 Week: 94/223 Day: 5/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Global Cooling?
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 39 of 79 (455662)
02-13-2008 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by johnfolton
02-13-2008 2:42 AM


Re: Global dimming?
i have noticed both the changes in plant life , animal life, and temperature of my area. lately the changes are becoming more drastic, weather patterns more chaotic and less predictable, and for the past 5 years winters milder and milder, Jan used to be the coldest month, is now mild compared to February.
state flowers are almost becoming extinct to the states they were of origin to.
i wonder..the atmosphere gaining so much more carbons from the earth, what has it done to the size of the atmosphere as a whole? has any studies been done on the distance of the stratosphere from the body of the earth? is it shrinking?
it would appear that in a greenhouse the extra heat, which rises, seems to shrink the overall breathing room in the atmosphere of the greenhouse. I'm not a scientist, but i was wondering if it has any relevance.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by johnfolton, posted 02-13-2008 2:42 AM johnfolton has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by RAZD, posted 02-13-2008 12:29 PM tesla has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 40 of 79 (455679)
02-13-2008 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Percy
02-13-2008 8:10 AM


venus question
venus question:
carbon layers in the atmosphere arnt in the same path of the water vapor, is it?
i have a question relative to global warming and the layers of our atmosphere and relation to radiation.
for instance, how water reacts to radiation. how O3 reacts to radiation, and how CO2 reacts to radiation.
in the layers, radiation is bouncing back and forth between the layers. but the concentration doesn't appear to be strong enough for the radiation to cause a reaction of the CO2 layer, but here's the if:
how does radiation react to concentrations of CO2 and other elements in the atmosphere? what concentration would be necessary for any possible ignition if any?
what I'm getting at, is that if the refraction between layers of the radiation was strong enough, and the concentration of carbons strong enough, could we get a reaction that may ignite a similar cloud to the atmosphere that covers Venus, an absolute covering?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Percy, posted 02-13-2008 8:10 AM Percy has not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 43 of 79 (455699)
02-13-2008 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by RAZD
02-13-2008 12:29 PM


Re: Bringing on evolution?
Moving into a period of punctuated evolution from one of stasis?
if history repeats itself, it would appear your correct.
but im just digging through the global warming aspects. there's a lot of action and reaction in the environment, but on a global scale, how is the carbons being added effecting the overall weather, what does this mean for our future condition at the current rate, and perhaps another thread would be more appropriate to discuss the biological evolution in full.
i pointed out the biological evolution changes just to validate the global climate changes, so there could be a greater evidence to the charts in question. action, and reaction, truth of global warming =?
I'm more interested not in the obvious truth that the planet is evolving in its climates from the added carbons, but rather, with current trends, what is possible to say of our climate in 3 years? 10 years? 50 years?
does the added carbon layer shrink our global atmosphere capacity for water? does the smaller space mean greater ground weathers?
will that affect the magnetic poles?
could the atmosphere ignite from electric and radiation forces that by my estimation, would increase in a smaller global atmosphere?
in conclusion: where are we possibly headed in global climate? could the carbons produce a Venus effect in large enough concentration?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by RAZD, posted 02-13-2008 12:29 PM RAZD has not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 46 of 79 (455789)
02-13-2008 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by johnfolton
02-13-2008 4:17 PM


Re: Global dimming?
Days were brighter when you were a kid. You haven’t seen the difference, but you might have felt it. In recent years, data analysis by scientists in Israel, Australia, and the United States has shown that sunlight intensity, averaged across hundreds of locations on all continents, decreased by 1.3 to 3% per decade from the 1950s to 1990s. When reported a few years ago [1], these findings were controversial, but subsequent research has helped confirm the occurrence if not the precise magnitude of so-called “global dimming.”
so what your saying is we have a layer of smog now?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by johnfolton, posted 02-13-2008 4:17 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by johnfolton, posted 02-14-2008 2:08 AM tesla has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 50 of 79 (455870)
02-14-2008 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by johnfolton
02-14-2008 2:08 AM


Re: Global dimming?
have you read my concerns about the possibilities of a Venus effect?
what data do you have concerning that?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by johnfolton, posted 02-14-2008 2:08 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by johnfolton, posted 02-14-2008 1:17 PM tesla has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 51 of 79 (455871)
02-14-2008 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by johnfolton
02-14-2008 2:20 AM


Re: Global dimming?
Lockwood could be right that solar increases have stabilized for the present but be wrong that Co2 is causing global temperatures to be increasing even though the solar increases for the last century may have temporarily stablilized.
thats one huge "MAY" and a very dangerous gamble.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by johnfolton, posted 02-14-2008 2:20 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by johnfolton, posted 02-14-2008 12:51 PM tesla has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 53 of 79 (455896)
02-14-2008 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by johnfolton
02-14-2008 12:51 PM


Re: Global dimming?
yes a lot of "maybes" and you as a scientist don't want it to become political agenda unless its a verified fact.
but look at this:
the extra carbons ARE having an impact, and how deep it will potentially be still has to be explored.
if even the "chance" that these carbons could cause an ice age by diluting the oceans salt content and killing the mid Atlantic drift, then precautions should be taken on the political agenda.
for many reasons: ie: the chaos of a major climate shift could cause some now "first" world countries to become "third" world countries. the new populace of "first" world countries are rely very very heavily on economy and technology, both which could break down with the absence of money. take money out of the equation, and all technology will collapse. its how the populace has been taught.
no one truly understands in full the implications of what the extra carbons are doing. if anyone DID, there would not be a dispute.
you should be very cautious politically of course, because of economic complications, but at the same time, when your dealing with the potential collapse of current super powers, the scale of economic destruction when its too late is too big a danger to ignore.
lets not look at this data and say absolutely anything, because there is no absolute in tomorrow til tomorrow is here. instead lets review the data, add more data, and make a wise decision concerning it.
cause and effect: if cause potential A is 50% are you willing to accept the consequences? if A= good, and b = destruction of global economies, or perhaps the extinction of most life on the planet, is a 50% chance acceptable? what are the vchances? what do the models show as "potentials"? are they acceptable in the event A=B which has the outcome of C with a 20% chance? can we fix the problem if C becomes reality?
and in conclusion: have you explored any potentials of a Venus effect, or have any data that can show that the atmosphere that retains water is shrinking in capacity from added carbons?
(please see and respond to the VENUS questions in earlier posts)

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by johnfolton, posted 02-14-2008 12:51 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 55 of 79 (455904)
02-14-2008 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by johnfolton
02-14-2008 1:17 PM


Re: Global dimming?
you have quoted Venus current atmosphere, but at what concentration did the Venus atmosphere become a full covering?
ie:
I'm not to concerned about it because Venus has much more Co2 96 percent and closer to the sun
what is the true reason Venus has this atmosphere? is it because of vicinity to the sun, or because of radiation forces with a concentration of CO2? at what levels of CO2 concentration, and the highest known spike of radiation concentrations, and the overlapping bounce of radiation in the atmosphere with the carbons constitute a full covering?
we need data.
The EPA has Co2 safe up to 5,000 ppm we got a long way to go before Co2 would be a threat to human health, etc...
so it IS safe just because they said so? how many times has established and believed organizations set rules only to discover later, they were wrong? if they are wrong, can we deal with the consequences?
Conclusion. According to government mine safety regulations, atmospheric CO2 would have to rise as high as 5000 ppm before it posed a direct threat to human health
what part of human health? breathing area? what could atmospheric CO2 do to our climate? an indirect source for human hazard?
Even if temperatures increase slightly, life on earth will thrive.
based on opinions? i don't have much faith in maybes. we need data. and we better make a wise decision.
Since no scientist predicts a rise of this magnitude in the next century,
then in what century? whose children? is the extinction of man inevitable at some point? or can what you do today, save tomorrow?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by johnfolton, posted 02-14-2008 1:17 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by johnfolton, posted 02-14-2008 2:26 PM tesla has replied
 Message 75 by BMG, posted 02-16-2008 3:32 PM tesla has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 57 of 79 (455972)
02-14-2008 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by johnfolton
02-14-2008 2:26 PM


Re: Global dimming?
What you have is climatic scientists disagreeing with bypassing science in favor of Fear.
i don't agree. what we have is scientist who figure if it isn't knocking them in the face it isn't important, and other scientist who have data that suggest with ignorance and inaction we may produce the extinction of our species, or at least speed along our own extinction.
tell me, is it a wise fear, to fear a tornado?
is it wise, to fear an earthquake?
but because a tornado is possible we have counter measures.
also for an earthquake.
why then is it not wise to stop CO2 production in a timely fashion, before we cripple the entire ecosystem of the earth from what we know it is today?
the earth will evolve, but we are speeding up the process. how many volcanoes would it take to release the amount of carbon man is doing in a consistent fashion?
if you think its wise, and say "don't worry nothing to fear". then consider this. you are not the only person who ignored the wisdom of preparation, and when the wars started, them and their families were all killed because they did not believe the danger.
were hurting this planet. its changing the seasons and the weather. and it will probably get worse pretty fast. your the scientist that is supposed to collect data, and use science to benefit mankind, and mankind's survival. if you ignore the evidence by looking at only a small portion of the evidence, then you are aiding nothing. and it would be better that you were a flooring installer instead of a scientist. because all you'll do is nothing but say : its all good , have a beer. look over there, cute girl, ill get her number, oh by the way i make 300k a year, and I'm well known for being real smart, so when i say don't worry. don't worry. cause i know. ima scientist. oh hey whats that happening to the sky? seems we have storms all the time now, whoa hey look there, the "global dimming" has gotten so bad that i cant see the moon at night no more. ooo ho ho, look the sun looks like a sackcloth has pulled over it. yup but don't worry, just drink another beer and see the pretty girls dance. after all, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.
i find your arguments disturbing, ignorant, foolish to the point of stupidity of all i have ever debated with.
i wish you no ill, but if you are a scientist, you should be looking for the truth by collecting more data. not staring at some incomplete data and pronouncing to everyone "the world is flat" like a recording from past ignorance.
P.S. Faith is a funny thing unless its in Christ would not base it on data that's based on Fear!
you silly man, every walk you make and do is faith in the world and yourself. know this: the fear of God is wisdom. if you have observed any truth, then know this: God will be, even if and when this world is not. if your faith is in the world, and the world is gone, then nothing will you have left to have faith in.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by johnfolton, posted 02-14-2008 2:26 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by johnfolton, posted 02-14-2008 8:04 PM tesla has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 59 of 79 (455978)
02-14-2008 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by johnfolton
02-14-2008 8:04 PM


Re: Global dimming?
that article is making some large stretches.
who is to say that what is now at the polar cap, wasn't at one time in the ancient past, near the equator?
the data of temperature, does that mean that if the organism lived next to a hot spring, or volcanic activity, that it only would reflect the immediate temperature of its surrounding?
your science is tentative. and i leave it to other scientists to debate with you. but i think its ridiculous and naive to believe that the carbons we are drawing from the past and throwing into the atmosphere is no danger.
it is not out of fear these changes are being made, its out of wisdom of preparation. the fear is either justified, or not. but there are enough reliable scientists that say it is a legit fear. and what i observe in the weather, life, and seasons is they are right. the question only remains for me, how right, and what is being overlooked?
i will make no claim as to its depth, the data isn't available. you can claim and believe in this data you set before me, but its a very very far stretch. tentative science, and i will only work with the absolute science, and then check the potentials based from that.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by johnfolton, posted 02-14-2008 8:04 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 68 of 79 (456173)
02-15-2008 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by RAZD
02-15-2008 10:32 PM


Re: Bringing on evolution?
You're thinking food chain crashes and other domino effects yes? Again I don't doubt that extinction will occur -- just that it will be the only thing that occurs.
the evidence of this is wide scale. even now. i can observe it from my front porch. its a definite concern.
I'm just wondering can the depth be understood and action taken by a normally very slow political process, that will curb or solve the mess we have all made.
in order for science to find a fix, we need the green technologies, and have them implemented. science needs to understand the how, so politics can implement a pertinent action.
i was hoping to explore some things in this thread concerning actual fixes, by understanding the actual problem, and also try to determine possible time frames to determine when action will become impossible.
keep an open mind for the next things I'm saying, because i'm trying to use logic on something i don't really understand much (climate)
actual problem: know the atmosphere layers, the base components, how they interact with each other within the conditions they are subject to, and test different concentrations in a lab to see what effects are possible, : ie:
O3 Co2 (nitrogen?) and other gases; reaction to electricity (lightning) reaction to radiation (up to the concentrations of a sunburst and reflective concentrations)
i'm aware that scientist know the atmospheric layers, but i don't know if they have measured the depth consistently ie: is the growing layer of CO2 making the water containable space smaller?
if a volume of a greenhouse is 200 cubic meters, and water evaporates, the water can be held until it condensates by cooling, or by over saturation of the air mass. if i flood the greenhouse with 10% CO2, and it stays at the top, only 180 cubic meters is left to retain water molecules before it condensates from lack of volume. which means more rain.
atmospherically, wind can ride well above the land at much higher speeds than near the ground, and ground winds can be much lighter, but when wind has less space to ride above the earth, because of saturation (clouds) then the wind is stronger on the surface (of course as it is logical to me, id love verification or correction)
not sure what more storms and acid rain would do to everything, but from what I've seen so far, it don't look good.
Venus: with the US and China spitting out so many carbons, and other countries possibly fixing to follow suit, i'm not sure that the Asian technology thats dragging a big kite through the sky will be enough.
i still am concerned about a potential absolute covering like many gaseous planets if interactions of carbon are possible in higher concentrations, for an atmospheric reaction.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2008 10:32 PM RAZD has not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 76 of 79 (456266)
02-16-2008 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by BMG
02-16-2008 3:32 PM


Re: Global dimming?
then their is no danger of an identical covering such as Venus actually has, but at what level if it is even possible could earth also have a covering of similar form, but of a different gaseous makeup?
what I'm asking is: by adding the carbons to our atmosphere, is the water containable space shrinking, and if shrinking, could the less air volume to support water mean that global warming could cause the sky to become permanently covered?
this is what i mean by Venus effect, a solid covering that would block most light from the surface.
I'm just exploring potentials, and wondering what data on our atmospheric capacity is available.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by BMG, posted 02-16-2008 3:32 PM BMG has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 02-16-2008 6:48 PM tesla has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 78 of 79 (456271)
02-16-2008 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by RAZD
02-16-2008 6:48 PM


Re: Global dimming?
Nitrogen narcosis is a problem with gas mixes containing nitrogen. A typical planned maximum partial pressure of nitrogen for technical diving is 3.5 bar absolute, based on an equivalent air depth of 35 metres (115 feet).
The expected number of particles with energy ei for Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics is Ni where:
ah well..didn't get the math..its above my head ill have to withdraw, but I'm still uneasy, what i can understand of the math appears to be valid in controlled states of temperatures and pressures. i don't understand the three different types of gases and how their relevant to each other exactly (divided by at what temperature the product becomes a gas?)
it still stands to reason that the extra pressure of having a heavier atmosphere will have effect on weather patterns at the least. i think too much is being overlooked but i wouldn't know where to start. don't have the knowledge.
thanks razd tho, for what you did throw on the table, i can only wait and see, how this global warming is going to pan out.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 02-16-2008 6:48 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by RAZD, posted 02-17-2008 8:10 PM tesla has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024