Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Global warming - fact or conspiracy?
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 34 of 111 (325145)
06-23-2006 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Ragged
06-20-2006 1:06 AM


Dad was right it was always global warming
My dad said 30 years ago the winters were much milder than when he was a kid. Yet in school I was told my father errored and that we were experiencing global cooling. This was in the late 70,s freon and particulates were all being banned all in the name of global cooling.
I suspect there is a conspiracy cause too me it was always global warming (my dad was right)(environmentalists wrong)and he always felt that freon and particulates emmissions (including greenhouse gases)were not causing global cooling in the late 1970,s. That it was a scam on fossil fuel to depower the people to not build refineries, drill for oil, burn coal for electricitiy.
Now the shifty environmentalists have shifted the blame so greenhouse gases instead of causing global cooling its now the cause for global warming. It makes sense that clouds including greenhouse gases would absorb heat but greater cloud cover would only increase the amount of sunlight reflected offsetting the amounts absorbed from the earth.
The problem too me is that the oceans are heating up not that the upper atmosphere is heating up and that its all due to the suns over 30 decades of increased output of solar energies. Its a fact that the oceans are heating up but the blame is being shifted from the sun to
fossil fuel.
Is it a (conspiracy)to depower the peoples of the world? I believe it is a conspiracy and I believe global warming is real. Its not going away from my point of view until the sun decreases its present cycle of solar increased energies and even then ti will take a bit longer for the oceans to cool.
On a side note greenhouse gases are simply good for the environment, increases in plant growth, oxygen production. The nitrate problem gives greenhouse gases a bad rap as most of nitrate problem is caused by the farmer polluting the water table with their liquid nitrate fertilizer.
Carbon monoxide (fossil fuel burning) converts naturally to carbon dioxide. We likely all agree in the cities we have the need for scrubbers in factories and catalytic converters in cars to convert monoxide to dioxide for air quality.
Perhaps the answer is to move industry to the countryside so greenhouse gases could be imparted to the farmer and the earth to disperse greenhouse gases. The more greenhouse gases the more plants grow (aerial fertilizer)to feed the planet.
* Supporting references.
Is carbon dioxide a harmful air pollutant, or is it an amazingly effective aerial fertilizer?
http://www.co2science.org/...2ScienceB2C/about/president.jsp
The ocean has a greater capacity for storing heat than the atmosphere, which means it reacts slower than the atmosphere to changes in the balance in incoming/ outgoing radiation. This means that ocean temperatures change more slowly that atmospheric ones, whether this is on a diurnal, seasonal or climate time scale.
Page not found | climateprediction.net
Those looking for the culprit responsible for global warming have missed the obvious choice - the sun. While it may come as a newsflash to some, scientific evidence conclusively shows that the sun plays a far more important role in causing global warming and global cooling than any other factor, natural or man-made. In fact, what may very well be the ultimate ironic twist in the global warming controversy is that the same solar forces that caused 150 years of warming are on the verge of producing a prolonged period of cooling.
Page not found - The National Center

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Ragged, posted 06-20-2006 1:06 AM Ragged has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Larni, posted 06-23-2006 11:28 AM johnfolton has replied
 Message 37 by deerbreh, posted 06-23-2006 11:32 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 06-23-2006 12:36 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 45 of 111 (325382)
06-23-2006 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Larni
06-23-2006 11:28 AM


Re: Dad was right it was always global warming
I agree the answer is not cutting down the forest of Brazil that converts carbon dioxide to oxygen. The increases of the suns energies over decades is obviously being captured by the oceans waters.
I agree the waters of the clouds absorb energy too, but it pales in comparison to the solar energies absorbed by the oceans over decades.
We have a lot of coal that we could burn to increase the carbon dioxide and nitrate levels. We don't need to mass cut forests that could be selective cut.
If the sun is the culprit heating the biggest heat trap (the oceans of the world) then greenhouse gases is simply a drop in the bucket.
This is the question what percentage is this drop in the bucket (greenhouse gases) contributing in comparison to the oceans vastness and its vast ability to aborb the suns energies.
In the 70's one of the reasons they banned freon from auto supply stores because they said it reflected the sun (global cooling). There is a trade off between atmosphere reflecting the sun and absorbing heat from the earth(what is the difference in percentage).
What happens if the sun cools off over decades instead of its present heating phase. Would not the oceans temps drop simply because the sun cooled off just a bit.
To say that global cooling or global warming is caused by greenhouse gases too me is a conspiracy.
I not sure we need any studies how greenhouse gases increases plant production. Its well known that greenhouses use (carbon dioxide) to conserve water and stimulate plant growth.
Building coal power plants all across the country is not a bad idea if greenhouse gases are not the root cause for global warming. I know were told greenhouse gases not the sun is the root cause.
I simply disagree believing instead its the sun heating the oceans that are the root cause of global warming.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Larni, posted 06-23-2006 11:28 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by deerbreh, posted 06-23-2006 2:43 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 61 by Larni, posted 06-24-2006 5:57 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 51 of 111 (325429)
06-23-2006 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by deerbreh
06-23-2006 2:43 PM


Re: Dad was right it was always global warming
I agree in high humidity its uptake of carbon dioxide and water is increased. In times of low humidity higher CO2 levels promotes greater closure of the stoma, reducing amount of water lost through evaporation.
* resource cited below.
Previous research has claimed that the observed increases in plant growth result from a greater abundance of atmospheric CO2. Though plants clearly require CO2 to grow, water and higher humidity make plants more efficient at drawing in carbon. In dry conditions, plants close special cells in their leaves, called stoma, to reduce the amount of water lost to the air through evaporation. Higher CO2 availability also promotes closure of these cells since the plants can have a smaller opening, save water, and take in the same amount of nutrients. But when the air is wetter, these pores can open without a net water loss, increasing CO2 uptake while reducing the amount of water needed to grow. “If you increase the rainfall you can sequester more carbon from the atmosphere,”
Rain Helps Carbon Sink

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by deerbreh, posted 06-23-2006 2:43 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by deerbreh, posted 06-23-2006 4:56 PM johnfolton has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 57 of 111 (325500)
06-23-2006 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by deerbreh
06-23-2006 4:56 PM


Elevated Co2 (greenhouse gases)
The article is mentioning that plants benefit in times of low humidity because the stoma cells are able to close down (due to Co2 increased atmospheric concentrations) so the plants are not drawing excess water from the soils.
It benefits shallow root crops because the farmer needs to water less during times of low humidity. In this way the article its saying Co2 benefits plants even in times of low humidity.
In response to increased leave surface area, that would be a good thing because more cells would be photosythesising converting Co2 to Oxygen.
I agree per square inch during times of low humidity it would convert less Co2 but the greater leaf surface has more cells to photosythesis Co2 to O2.
The greater surface area naturally would draw more water from the soil, but not excessively due to the closing down of the stoma's.
The farmer benefits because the plants would not be drawing water from the soil excessively during times of low humidity(water energy savings to the farmer).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by deerbreh, posted 06-23-2006 4:56 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by kuresu, posted 06-23-2006 11:05 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 71 by deerbreh, posted 06-24-2006 6:19 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 59 of 111 (325514)
06-23-2006 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by kuresu
06-23-2006 11:05 PM


Re: Elevated Co2 (greenhouse gases)
With just a 300 ppm increase in Co2 plant yields increased 31 percent in optimal water conditions and 63 percent in times when water is less plentiful.
Co2 atmospheric concentrations is expected to double in the next hundred years which will benefit the farmer.
* reference sited below
ver the past 150 years atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased approximately 30 percent, rising from 280 to 360 parts per million (ppm).
Instead of a disaster, the expected doubling of CO2 due to human activities will produce a number of benefits over the next century.
Farmers Need CO2. Based on nearly 800 scientific observations around the world, a doubling of CO2 from present levels would improve plant productivity on average 32 percent across species.
Increasing CO2 levels speeds the time in which plants mature and improves their growth efficiency and water use. Botanists have long realized that CO2 enhances plant growth, which is why they pump CO2 into greenhouses.
In addition, higher CO2 levels decrease water loss in plants, giving them an advantage in arid climates and during droughts. In 55 experiments conducted by U. S. Department of Agriculture research scientist Sherwood Idso, increased levels of CO2 dramatically enhanced plant growth. For example, Idso found:
With a CO2 increase of 300 ppm, plant growth increased 31 percent under optimal water conditions and 63 percent when water was less plentiful.
http://uplink.space.com/printthread.php?Cat=&Board=enviro...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by kuresu, posted 06-23-2006 11:05 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by kuresu, posted 06-23-2006 11:53 PM johnfolton has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 65 of 111 (325706)
06-24-2006 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by kuresu
06-23-2006 11:53 PM


Re: Elevated Co2 (greenhouse gases)
In the ocean Co2 is sequestered from the atmosphere and forms precipitates. This is how our limestone, chalk, marble deposits formed.
I've heard massive algae blooms were caused by low Co2, never heard they were caused by high levels of Co2.
* references below
As carbon dioxide dissolves in sea water, an equilibrium is established involving the carbonate ion, CO32. The carbonate anion interacts with cations in seawater. According to the solubility rules, "all carbonates are insoluble except those of ammonium and Group IA elements." Therefore, the carbonate ions cause the precipitation of certain ions. For example, Ca2+ and Mg2+ ions precipitate from large bodies of water as carbonates. For CaCO3, the value of Ksp is 5 109, and for MgCO3, Ksp is 2 103. Extensive deposits of limestone (CaCO3) and dolomite (mixed CaCO3 and MgCO3) have been formed in this way. Calcium carbonate is also the main constituent of marble, chalk, pearls, coral reefs, and clam shells.
http://scifun.chem.wisc.edu/chemweek/CO2/CO2.html
Adding additional light without CO2, however, can lead to massive algae blooms... not fun. If you must choose between either CO2 or light... go CO2 first.
Aquaria Central - which comes first: the lighting or the CO2?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by kuresu, posted 06-23-2006 11:53 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by kuresu, posted 06-24-2006 2:24 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 67 by kuresu, posted 06-24-2006 2:27 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 73 by Larni, posted 06-24-2006 6:56 PM johnfolton has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 74 of 111 (325923)
06-24-2006 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Larni
06-24-2006 6:56 PM


Re: Runaway Feedback
I don't share your fear of increasing Co2, methane, causing global warming. I however agree the cottail of gases including methane is
contributing gases into the water vapor in the atmosphere is all a part of the canopy absorbing heat radiated from the earth.
Is oxygen nitrogen a greater contributor than Co2 to global warming or is these gases simply absorbing their heat from the water vapor and not directly from the earth.
I thought pressures is the main reason why methane hyrates crystalize. Its similar why they pump Co2 into oil wells and it does not return to the surface because of the pressure.
You'd think that rising ocean levels are a good thing because it will help keep these methane hydrates from burping bigtime if its based on pressure. A good reason for the earth to melt the polar caps to keep these massive methane hydrates contained, better to flood the coastlines than burn the planet bigtime.
In a desert with no clouds the nights are cold and the days hot. I suspect all gases without water vapor does nothing to promote global warming.
I suspect given the massive amounts of heat given off from a hurricane moisture condensing that water vapor is the biggest contributor to global warming next to the suns solar cycles.
Is the water canopy causing global warming because of the solar cycles presently heating up the waters of the earth.
Is it the water vapor capturing the heat radiated from the earth and is it transfering its heat to the cottail of gases. If so then the earth is not directly heating these gases if it was the deserts would be warmer throughout the night.
New web address for RenewAmerica
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Larni, posted 06-24-2006 6:56 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by kuresu, posted 06-24-2006 11:53 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 76 by kuresu, posted 06-25-2006 12:12 AM johnfolton has replied
 Message 78 by Larni, posted 06-25-2006 7:27 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 77 of 111 (325997)
06-25-2006 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by kuresu
06-25-2006 12:12 AM


I can accept that the greenhouse gases like co2, methane appear to be the culprit because they are the only gases increasing in the atmosphere.
If the sun is heating up then I'll agree its heating up these gases a bit too (dry heat) with water vapor the biggest culprit.
I believe water vapor is the biggest culprit because with the suns decades of increased solar intensities more water vapor is being released to the atmosphere as the oceans warm (elnino).
The increases in water vapor to the atmosphere canopy (to me) trumps the increases in Co2, methane, and industrial pollution). I however can not discount (dry heat from greenhouse gases)(and humidity) that is captured by the water canopy and some this radiated heat reflects back to the earth.
The deserts get quite hot yet the desert gets quite cold in the evening. Without the water vapor canopy (humidity)(clouds) all your greenhouse gases (dry heat)do is move their captured heat to the upper atmosphere.
* This article reference below says that methane hydrates are stable at 39 degrees under pressure.
For one thing, methane hydrates -- which are ice-like cages made of water molecules surrounding individual methane molecules -- are only stable at the very low temperatures and high pressures present at the ocean floor.
They look like ice, but they are not. They are stable at 4 degrees Celsius,”
http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/PR_display.asp?prID=05-17

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by kuresu, posted 06-25-2006 12:12 AM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by kuresu, posted 06-25-2006 11:10 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 83 by deerbreh, posted 06-26-2006 9:27 AM johnfolton has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 93 of 111 (326929)
06-27-2006 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by deerbreh
06-26-2006 9:27 AM


*** Your comments about carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide are also patently ridiculous. ***
Carbon monoxide does convert thru natural processes to carbon dioxide.
The temperature of the earth has been studied over 200 years and show the temps have increased about 1 degree C.
The article ***Sun's warming influence 'under-estimated'***
referenced below supports global warming was already a factor before the greenhouse gases of the industrial revolution.
The increases from the evidence are suggestive that global warming are due to increases in solar activities and a decrease in low cloud cover causing less solar radiation to be reflected from the earth.
source references ***
Carbon monoxide is created when carbon-containing fuels are burned incompletely. Through natural processes in the atmosphere, it is eventually oxidized to carbon dioxide. Carbon monoxide concentrations are both short-lived in the atmosphere and spatially variable.
Answers about Carbon Monoxide
Scientists at Armagh Observatory claim a unique weather record could show that the Sun has been the main contributor to global warming over the past two centuries.
When analysed, the data allow the average temperature at Armagh to be calculated to an accuracy of 0.1 deg C per decade. Eventually the entire data set will be placed on the internet.
"It's quite apparent from our data that global warming, of about a degree C, has been taking place for at least a hundred years," Dr Butler told BBC News Online.
Low clouds cool the Earth by reflecting more solar radiation back into space, so a drop in the amount of low cloud contributes to global warming.
The data will confuse some climate experts who argue that the influence of changes in the Sun on rising temperatures has already been studied, and discounted, as a major cause of global warming.
"I suspect that the greenhouse lobby have under-estimated the role of solar variability in climate change,"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1045327.stm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by deerbreh, posted 06-26-2006 9:27 AM deerbreh has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by EZscience, posted 06-27-2006 9:31 PM johnfolton has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 98 of 111 (327021)
06-28-2006 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by EZscience
06-27-2006 9:31 PM


*****...which has absolutely no bearing on the fact that these gases are undeniably amplifying any purported effects of solar radiation.
*****
No, Human contributions to all the greenhouse gases including water vapor is only .28% of the greenhouse effect. Whats .28% of 1 degree (mans contributions) to greenhouse gases truthfully is not amplifying global warming (mans contributions are really meaningless). The only real change amplifying global warming is water vapor.
****reference below:
Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor). This is insignificant!
Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28% (factoring in water vapor).
" I can only see one element of the climate system capable of generating these fast, global changes, that is, changes in the tropical atmosphere leading to changes in the inventory of the earth's most powerful greenhouse gas-- water vapor. "
Dr. Wallace Broecker, a leading world authority on climate
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University,
lecture presented at R. A. Daly Lecture at the American Geophysical Union's
spring meeting in Baltimore, Md., May 1996.
403 Forbidden
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by EZscience, posted 06-27-2006 9:31 PM EZscience 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