Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Photizo, Nov 29, 2009.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Here you go, Billy T : http://www.cornwallalliance.org/
@ Billy T, any one,
I am aware that you are predicting some serious possibilities regarding CH4 in the atmosphere. I too, also hold concerns but from a slightly different angle.
There appears to me that the planet may provide it's own solution ( whilst disregarding human consequence btw) and that is in the natural increase in lightning activity which we are witnessing here in Australia and I believe this increase is significant and global, increasing every year at a significant rate.
What I would like to ask you is :
How in your opinion, increases in lightning strikes/activity may effect the models of excessive CH4 ?
I have a suspicion that as weather dynamics increase so too does lightning activity and I believe (with out any supportive reason I might add) that lightning may and I mean may provide this planet a counter effect to the high CH4 emissions that you have stated as being evident.
I wonder what, say, a 1000 fold increase in lightning activity might mean to climate change gasses? (and oxygen levels)
perhaps you could defend your God against such a charge as quackery?
After all for an omni potent all knowing entity he certainly has let you down.
What? Can't heal - must destroy.... comes to mind... such a limited understanding of the true God, couched in human fear driven egoistic terms and definitions. blah!
Quackery indeed and in deed!
On (1), yes more lighting should help remove CH4, I think. I know It makes ozone as have smelled it once. My best high-school friend and I were in small boat fishing in a lake, when bolt hit the water very near us. He was at the stern, stood up to pull on the starter motor cord (we were "drift fishing") and I gave such a hard pull on the ores that he only avoided falling out over the stern as he could gab hold of the motor.
In some posts here, I have also described in some detail (wanting to prevent anyone from patenting idea) how a wind spun cylindrical balloon* could power some germicidal UV lamps to make both OH- radical and ozone to destroy CH4. (Energy used in situ so no power line to ground weight or cost. Also on axis at both ends are cheap, weather proof, car or truck alternators.) Lighting does the same but not continuously and makes harmful to life reactive agents close to ground that my concept does not. The balloon needs "tails" to keep best orientation (axis orthogonal to wind) and they provide space for advertisements. I think that the concept may even make a profit but it will be marginal why I don't want any patent license fees to exist. Extinction is too serious to try to make profit while speeding its arrival as the Big oil does. Making a profitable system is needed to get many thousand deployed globally. That is needed to destroy CH4 as fast as it is being released.
On (2): I don't think even a 10 fold increase in lightning is possible, but even if it is it would not be enough to terminate the growing CH4 atmospheric concentrations.
* BTW, a spinning cylinder balloon can have more lift per pound than a spherical one. The extra lift is form the same force than lets a pitcher throw a curve ball. I forget just now what this spin lift is called.
How has He let me down?
Gosh , I could write a list a mile long and it would still prove futile regardless of it's veracity...
If you google "lightning strike frequency" you may be surprised by the large number of future predictions.
Just some thoughts:
The concept is premised on the basis that this planet and all that live upon it are not existent in this universe simply by chance. That the human race exists because it is a universal physical requirement that it does. The laws of physics (beyond that which are already known) that include life and living forms requires that this planet and it's cargo of life forms is essential to maintaining universal integrity.
That integrity is maintained by the true laws of physics that allow for automatic corrections in the event of deviations from the median.
Therefore one could speculate that the planets eco systems are self justifying and self correcting. How this would play out for individual humans is not the point. It is how it plays out for the eco system that the human race (as a collective) is and has been a significant part of.
As the planets environment degrades whether man made or not, the equalizing and justifying systems kick in. In this case in the form of an increase in lightning activity. ( And no doubt other self correcting systems become evident - a sort of auto immune response)
If we assume that we exist not by chance but by physical necessity we can suggest that:
Due to the planets position and circumstance in this solar system "liquid" water must be present within a certain range so no conversion to Venus or Mars type environmental conditions is possible.
Essentially it means that the Earth has to remain the Earth and that applies to all upon it.
This does not mean that mankind can avoid consequences for it's unwise activities or natural adjustments, but it does mean that man kind must survive in some form.
The planet and it's eco systems (which include mankind) IMO, is evolving to a more sustainable position at a vastly accelerated rate due to circumstances discovered/revealed and yet to be discovered/revealed.
Lightning strikes I believe is one such system of atmospheric self correction so that ultimately liquid water can remain present on this planet. ( keeping in mind that humans are up to 95% water the above makes sense when considering a holistic universal closed system that includes human life that places the presence of liquid water in a pivotal and central role.)
I did that and found only one, predicting a 50% increase might occur in a 100 years with more global warming:
I'm quite confident my "10 fold increase in frequency of lightning is impossible" is very conservative.
As no one understands how clouds can get charged up to such high negative voltages that it breaks down the normally good insulation of the air - "prediction" is just guessing with no foundation. The idea that heat has something to do with it is surely correct, but there is no energy available with out thermal difference.
Sorry, but in my opinion that was just... ridiculous.
I guess the advent of increased lightning strikes is only just starting to emerge. Certainly the amazing lightning displays seen over our latest summer here ( and subsequent bush fires ) indicates a significant increase in activity (to me). Storms with significant lightning appearing as if "almost out of no where" with significant vortex type flows seem to becoming more frequent and intense.
The available strike data I believe is immature and not yet able to be assessed properly IMO.
But from what I have experienced my self over 50 odd years there appears to be a massive increase trending...
Agrees... prediction based on the inadequate understanding may be limited, however prediction based on the experience ( event data) may provide a better trend picture.
Also the frequency of "Dry" and "Clear Sky" lightning may also be increasing but detection is not so easy.
Found this little gem as a matter of side interest (Sydney):
No. lighting any where on earth is readily heard as that discharge is a source of a very wide sprectrum of EM waves, even down in the audio frequencies, where they are called "whislers," VLF wave can be trapped in a spherical wave guide (between earth an the ionosphere) and have been monitor for about 100 years, with AFAIK, no significant change in their average number of lighting strikes per day.
Compared to 24/7/365/ many decades of global lightning strike data, you impressions and memory are useless.
There are paths that are trapped in the Earth's magnetic field lines too. Google "lightning whislers" with/without VLF added. You can hear recordings of the Whislers. They sweep down in tone as those that pass thru weakly ionized plasma have significate dispersion.
fair enough.. useless it is then
although it appears the latest published data from our BOM includes only up to 2012 ...as far as my scim research can tell.
In nature, nitrogen is fixed by some micro-organisms and by lightning.
Nitrogen was the main limiting factor for accelerated plant growth in the F.A.C.E. (free air carbon enrichment) studies.
More would be better?
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Thanks for sharing, Kristoffer!
From above link in the comments section:
Has anyone read the paper "why models run hot"....
A different comment:
End of the world religions do move the goalposts when their dire predictions fail to materialize.
The IPCC objective as stated above is still available on the IPCC website. Strings Attached anyone?
Another comment regarding Grijalva:
The hypocrisy abounds!! But confirmation bias is a normal human condition. Related to Nobel Cause Corruption.
Reply to Milkweed's post 1756:
Comments and other opinions do not change the facts and physic presented in post 1710. - For fifth time, I ask: can you find any flaw in what is presented there?
Thanks. I had noticed that but was too busy at time to open. From that link is:
"We can hope now that people everywhere will be convinced that the IPCC’s reports have been correct.”
Yes they can hope that, but given AGW's deniers strong beliefs it is not likely to be more than just a hope.
I too don't think the IPPC is correct. They are nearly a decade behind newly known facts and positive feed-back discoveries and thus still underestimating the danger of AGW. For examples see some of what they are neglecting in post 1710. More specifically still falsely assume tiny CH4 bubbles can't reach the Arctic Ocean surface, even with photographs and gas samples taken showing they do - in part because of the natural vertical pump I described, 5 August last year*, first for the air flux of CH4 up out of the new holes in Siberia but mechanism holds for gas bubbles making water buoyant too.
* In post here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/climate-gate.97892/page-46#post-3213664
Separate names with a comma.