07-28-12, 04:23 PM #41
Yes, Robert Hooke was deeply involved in the City of London establishment. If you know that establishment, you know it controls international policy throughout the world, as well as the foundations and organizations which control nearly all universities, colleges and media on the planet.
07-28-12, 06:18 PM #42
1. The Sun emits electromagnetic radiation as a black-body.
2. The Earth intercepts some of the electromagnetic radiation, a percentage of it is reflected back into space, the remained is absorbed.
3. The Earth emits electromagnetic radiation as a grey-body.
4. Greenhouse gasses warm the Earth, and keep it warmer (I think it's as much as 20K warmer - but I forget the exact figure) than a grey-body with Earth's characteristics otherwise would be.
5. This warming occurs because a portion of the blackbody radiation emitted by the Earth is of a frequency that excites vibrational and rotational modes in greenhouse gasses. This has the effect of storing some portion of the energy that would otherwise be lost into space as kinetic energy in the atmosphere.
6. The kinetic energy of molecules is how we define temperature and is available to do work doing things such as lifting masses and evaporating water. Which we call weather and climate.
If you have some kind of proof that disproves simple harmonic motion and hooke's law, then please, feel free to present it.
But then again, water vapour only , and most of that is concentrated near the surface. It's 1% to 4% near the surface, and 0.4% if you consider it across the whole atmosphere - which is what we do with carbondioxide,,
07-28-12, 07:42 PM #43
Honestly Trippy, if that is your belief, you are welcome to it. I don't see the Causation of CO2. You can crunch your numbers all you want, but I think something else is causing the net warming and that is causing the correlative rise in CO2 to be released above what humans release into the atmosphere. If we and our future generations are lucky, we will continue to see nice, warm weather, but I don't think we will. It isn't what geological data has shown us to be the case. As long as Antarctica is where it is, things will be cool.
Other than that, yeah, as long as you want to see things in a very dogmatic, black or white way, I don't think there is much for us to discuss. I am open to the possibility that humans may have upset the Earth's climate equilibrium, but you would have to present to me some data on the Gaia theory before I would be convinced. I have seen too much other data to know it is a much bigger and complex system then something puny little humans could every hope to affect. Tell you what, if you get all ten questions of the following Global Warming quiz right, maybe continued discussion would be fruitful, otherwise, you are probably dogmatically sticking to your guns on this one.
Global Warming Test
Athough there appears to be a correlation between increases in CO2 levels in the atmosphere and global temperature, it has not been proven that the small amounts of CO2 added by humans has raised or will raise global temperatures. Rising global temperatures caused by changes in solar activity may simply allow earth's oceans to surrender more CO2 to the atmosphere-- similar to a warm bottle of soda pop which burps and fizzes when opened because cold liquid can hold more CO2 than warm liquid.
07-28-12, 07:58 PM #44
NOTHING. Not one SINGLE thing I have said is reliant on the observed correlation between rising Carbondioxide and rising temperatures. Do you understand that? What I am talking about here is an approach from first principles. Do you understand what that means?
As I have said, SEVERAL times now, I AM NOT ADDRESSING THE CORRELATION. I am addressing the physical mechanism that leads the scientific community to attribute significance to the correlation in the first place.
I'm talking about the way masses behave on springs, nothing more.
Your source illustrates precisely the fallacy I am attempting to address.
Are we clear? I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE CORRELATION.
The only person bringing the correlation into the discussion, instead of focussing on the physics, is you and your understanding is suffering because of it.
07-28-12, 08:24 PM #45
BTW, yours is the fallacy.
Correlation does not imply Causation is the formal fallacy.
i.e. Pirates have disappeared as the Earth has warmed. Therefor, the disappearance of pirates causes global warming.
07-28-12, 09:02 PM #46
On the other hand, I'm not 'telling' you anything. The only thing I have tried to do is address your points by explaining to you the actual physical causal mechanism that leads scientists to believe that anthropogenic carbondioxide in the atmosphere causes warming. Do you understand the difference between what I am actually saying, and what you claim I am saying?
This mechanism, incidentally, is the exact same mechanism by which atmospheric water vapour causes warming. So if you accept that water vapour causes warming, you must also accept that carbondioxide causes warming, and then the discussion can only be a question of how much, and what follow on effects are likely.
I've been patient, I've been polite, I've put great effort into my posts, I've tried to explain things in language that anybody can follow, and for you to repay that with this kind of dishonest bullshit is frankly insulting.
07-29-12, 02:15 PM #47
I see you edited your post either after I replied, or while I was replying.
1. The sun emits electromagnetic radiation as a black body.
2. The inverse square law attenuates this radiation.
3. The Earth intercepts some of this radiation.
4. Some of the radiation the earth intercepts is reflected by the earth, the remainder is absorbed as thermal energy.
5. The Earth re-emits the radiation as a black body.
6. Because of its low surface temperature, the earth emits its radiation at long wavelengths.
7. Hooke's Law predicts that carbon dioxide, water, methane and every other greenhouse gas absorb long wavelength infra-red radiation and that they all have absorption features in the region were the Earth emits.
8. The energy absorbed by gasses is stored as translational, vibrational, and rotational energy, what we call heat.
9. The Beer-Lambert law predicts that as the partial pressure of CO2, so does the amount of IR radiation it absorbs.
All of these nine points have been experimentally verified.
When we perform the calculations based on 1 to 4, we find that the we predict the earth should be colder than we observe it to be.
It is on the basis of 5 to 9 that we conclude that the atmosphere makes up the difference in temperatures. It is also on the basis of 5 to 9 that we predict that increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses, we increase the temperature of the planet.
None of the above is reliant on the observation of a correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature.
There's a formal fallacy that describes what you've done here, but its name escapes me for the moment.
Have fun with those windmills, Garcia.
07-29-12, 02:23 PM #48
I don't think it's ever 'too late' to address the problem- carbon can always be captured. The question is how many ecosystems will be destroyed, and how many people in second and third world (and possibly first world if we find plague to be an issue) countries will have to suffer before it is solved.
It's an unfortunate situation, but it probably won't be solved until it gets bad enough that people make it a priority.
07-29-12, 03:20 PM #49
07-29-12, 04:08 PM #50
I have been patient, I have compiled well thought, and well reasoned posts, in which I have endeavoured to address the specific points that you have raise and you have dismissed with comments like:
"Yes, Robert Hooke was deeply involved in the City of London establishment. If you know that establishment, you know it controls international policy..."
Which do nothing, not one thing, to address the actual arguments that have been presented.
What else did you expect to happen when you explicitly state that you're ignoring me? Did you even think that one through? Here you are, interjecting in a thread discussing the basic causes and effects of anthropogenic global warming, and your self admitted SOLE PURPOSE is to proselytize your pet theory.
Your reaction has been absolutely typical of every denialist I have ever met who has been backed into the corner of having to admit the possibility that carbon dioxide could cause warming. That feeling, that niggling in the back of your skull is called cognitive dissonance. That embaressment that your feeling, it's the same thing. Don't ignore it, embrace it. You never know, you might learn something new today.
You seem to have a problem with it being labled as a conspiracy theory. What else would you suggest we call it?
You presented an assertion, that the theory of anthropogenic global warming was an example of post hoc, ergo, propter hoc. I addressed that point, by illustrating the method by which the conclusion was reached and you lash out with emotional diatribe such as " you only wish to discuss the issue from your own epistemological view point, as if that is the only valid paradigm..." What did you expect? To be able to make bogus claims without them being challenged?
I've explained the physics in basic language, I could probably delve into the math. I've asked you several direct questions, none of which you have been able to answer.
You've admitted that your only purpose in participating in this thread was to proselytize your conspiracy theory. You've admitted that you have no interest in trying to understand what I am trying to communicate. The best you have managed so far is to re-iterate the same disproven claims.
Incidentaly, I aced your little quiz, even though at least some of the questions are loaded, and presented in misleading frames.
Last edited by Trippy; 07-29-12 at 06:28 PM.
07-29-12, 06:09 PM #51
If anybody is wondering why my temper is fraying so quickly, it's because when I see comments like these:
And so when I see my interlocutor making dismissive statements such as some of those above, and these:
07-29-12, 10:25 PM #52
Temper, what are you talking about? You have more patience than I do, but then I have a feeling you are writing more for all the other people reading this thread than you are trying to convince The Esotericist.
When you are looking for reasons why the Earth is warming. You only need to look at those things that are changing. Sure the Sun has cycles, but from what I know they are 11 year cycles. Water vapor in the atmosphere does fluctuate with temperature, however white clouds reflect light and heat into space. It seems very naive to believe 7 billion people are not causing major changes to the Earths biosphere. We know that CO2 levels are rising because we have measurements over time that tell us.
No solution is going to be easy or quick, and humans may only be a part of the problem. I agree that we need to know a lot more, but when people feel the need to threaten and falsely discredit scientists for doing their job, I consider that to be criminally irresponsible and a very dangerous trend for the future prospects of human well being.
When we talk about a tipping point exactly what do we mean? IMO that's the point from which the changes taking place will negatively impact the entire world population for decades and maybe centuries into the future. Also, from what I understand after warming cycles we usually move into an iceage. Sounds like challenging times to me. Those kind of disruptions will cause wars all over the world and life will not be good for the survivors.
07-29-12, 11:24 PM #53
There's the eleven year Schwabe cycle, during which the solar activity peaks and then declines.
There's the 22 year Hale cycle - consisting of two Schwabe cycles, during which the polarity of the solar magnetic field reverses and returns to its previous state.
There are also several hypothesized cycles, based on observations of long term trends using proxies.
There's the 87 year Gleissberg cycle, which is interpreted as a modulation of the amplitude of the Schwabe cycle.
There's the 2300 year Hallstatt cycle.
Xapsos and Burke published evidence for a 6000 year cycle in 2009.
Damon and Sonnett have presented evidence for 105, 131, 232, 385, 504, 805, and 2241 year cycles (see page 360).
There are currently two hypothesis as to how the solar cycle may affect the climate. The one that is incorporated into the current climate models is essentially that as the number of sunspots increases, the number of solar plages increases. Sunspots are dark, but plages are bright, and the total contribution by plages outweighs the deficit caused by sunspots, and so during solar maxima, solar irradiance increases, the solar constant increases, and the temperature goes up. By this theory, changes in periodicity will also result in changes in temperature - think of it being the same as the duty cycle of any heating appliance. Short duty cycle = more efficient heating.
The second hypothesis, which has been alluded to in this discussion is that as solar activity decreases, so does the strength and speed of the solar wind. Because the solar wind is partially responsible for reducing the number of galactic cosmic rays reaching the earth, a decrease in its strength means more GCRs will reach us during solar minima. The hypothesis continues that these GCRs seed the formation of clouds in the atmosphere by causing ionization and nucleating the formation of nanometer scale seeds for crystal growth and cloud droplet seeding. So by this mechanism, the hypothesis goes, during solar minima the global cloud cover increases, increasing the albedo of the planet resulting in it cooling. While these nanometer scale crystals have been observed to be formed in a laboratory, there is currently no evidence supporting the transition from these nano-crystals to aerosols capable of seeding cloud formation. It also, on the face of it, appears to neglect to consider the fact that which direction clouds force heating is dependent on latitude, altitude and composition, and is something that is not straight forward. I don't know if this effect is currently considered in climate modles, but given that climate modles already account for solar variability, including this hypothesis and its effects should be trivial - should the hypothesis find itself on firmer scientific footing.
07-30-12, 12:47 AM #54
I think research into alternative energy is fine (I support scientific research anyway), but schemes like cap and trade or the Kyoto protocol are simply too expensive to implement and are not likely to accomplish anything anyway.
Ironically, the US is currently doing a better job of reducing it's carbon output than most of the rest of the world not because of any government policy such as cap and trade, but because of the boom in fracking and natural gas production which has brought down the price of natural gas and allowed many coal fired power plants to be replaced with natural gas.
07-30-12, 01:52 AM #55
07-30-12, 02:34 AM #56
07-31-12, 04:19 PM #57
On the other hand, the earths tilt and orbital eccentricity will continue to change, and its axis will continue to precess.
I don't think there's a lot we can do to reduce or prevent the sequestration of atmospheric carbon, which leaves us with ideas such as changing the albedo of parts of the earths surface (deserts, for example), and I'm not sure how smart that is, because doing so is almost certainly going to change weather patterns.
07-31-12, 04:48 PM #58
Wherever it tries to hide, we can find it- the issue is energy resources to do so- and nuclear energy isn't so limited.
However, there are also more effective greenhouse gases than CO2- and probably some we'll yet invent.
None of those things cause ice ages; it just moves the hot and cold areas around, and creates larger yearly extremes.
There are two things that could cause an ice-age: Sequestering of too much carbon from the atmosphere without compensating for it. Diminished output from the sun itself (not likely). We can deal with the first as long as we have energy resources and industry.
We only have to reduce it slightly for the geological carbon emission to keep up.
It strikes me as bizarre that you'd be more concerned with small changes in the weather patterns than an all out ice age.
Also: don't forget about orbital mirrors.
07-31-12, 05:30 PM #59
07-31-12, 05:47 PM #60
Milankovich Cycles on Wiki. Variation in solar insolation due to natural changes in earths orbital paramaters has its role to play. Think of it this way - the spatial distribution of Albedo variations on Earths surface is not uniform, so changing which part of the earth recieves peak insolation, when that peak insolation occurs, and how much the insolation varies is going to affect climate. Just the same as changing the axial tilt influences the distribution of the icecaps.
By coberst in forum Human ScienceLast Post: 04-12-10, 12:04 PMReplies: 33
By kmguru in forum Earth ScienceLast Post: 03-07-10, 01:50 PMReplies: 13
By Andre in forum Earth ScienceLast Post: 03-19-08, 09:43 PMReplies: 7
By Andre in forum Earth ScienceLast Post: 12-27-07, 03:52 PMReplies: 3
By hypewaders in forum World EventsLast Post: 01-18-04, 02:42 PMReplies: 6