Global Warming or Cooling

General tips, questions and answers about going green in your home and business. Achieve a more environmentally friendly lifestyle!

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby zzsstt » Sat Oct 31, 2009 8:39 am

I would like to put forward just a few brief comments.

greg c wrote:1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere average temperature rises, if it is lower the average temp falls. Nobody can have an argument with this, it is a proven fact.


Actually there are arguments with this. After some manipulation of the data to allow for issues in measurements (we are, after all, measuring via a very indirect route), it can indeed be shown that CO2 levels vary with temperature. I am not sure that we have yet "proven" that this is a cause and effect relationship in either direction.


greg c wrote:2. We know what the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has been over the last million years or so from deep ice core studies in Antarctica and European glaciers. Several studies have been done and they all agree. In these studies they have been able to deduce the average temp as well using isotope concentrations. This shows that the average temp track the CO2 concentration quite closely. As you would expect. The salient point to get from these studies is the CO2 concentration has never gone above 280ppm in that time, except in the last 150 years. It is now at 387. What happened in the last 150 years to cause this. Answer: Homo Sapiens discovered fossil fuel and began burning it. Again there can be no argument with this either, proven scientific fact


Again, there are some problems with this conclusion. The deep core ice sample data, whilst I have not reviewed the studies in detail, from the studies I have looked at assume they are measuring "bubbles of ancient air trapped in Antarctic ice". Unfortunately ice forms from the top down (i.e. the surface of the water/ocean freezes, then the ice increases with depth). It would therefore seem unlikely that there are "bubbles of ancient air" in deep ice. It would seem more likely that the bubbles come from the degassing of the water (like the bubbles in ice cubes from the fridge). Given that the gases dissolved in water come from both the atmosphere and the biological activity within that water, do those bubbles really represent the atmosphere at the time? If, on the other hand, we assume that the ice forms at the surface via the deposition of snow (which is logical, if we are taking the deep ice as being oldest) then it is more reasonable to suggest that the "bubbles" are indeed the spaces between snow flakes, and therefore potentially more closely related to atmospheric gases. There is, of course, the other issue of changing measurement techniques. Assuming for a minute that the ice-core samples are indeed representative of the atmosphere, how can we be sure they are representative on a 1:1 basis. Given that there is no "deep ice" that has been formed recently, we are only postulating that the numbers thus obtained do in fact match 1:1 with an atmospheric reading. This obviously also applies to any other comparison between different measurement systems, it is always risky to compare an actual physical measurement with an extrapolated reading.

Out of interest, how come we can carbon-date only within a few tens of thousands of years, and yet we can pin-point pre-historic atmospheric CO2 to a parts per million level?

greg c wrote:In that time computer models have been refined as more powerful computers have become available, and correlated with observations. It is common to criticise the model driven research but that is the only way to do it and a testament to the accuracy these models are getting now can be seen in the more accurate weather forecasting we have now.


I have spent a great deal of time heavily involved with computers. I can state quite categorically that a computer model can and will only ever reflect the views of its creator. The computer simply carries out calculations, and these calculations are based on the data and assumptions that it is given. If the computer is given all the right data, and all the right assumptions, it will give the right result. Can we even claim to have a few of the right assumptions? Whilst you are suggesting that we are now getting more accurate weather forecasting, I have seen no proof for it. In fact, I have monitored the weather forecasts for some years, and they are not very good. Over the very short term (up to 3 days) there is "some" accuracy, though obviously given our current levels of measurement and satellite photography this is potentially down to seeing the direction of movement of current weather, rather than any "prediction". Out to 28 days we have a very poor rate. Looking only at rainfall, last year I recorded the predicted chances of rain (none, low, medium or high) on the 28 days forecast, each and every day. I would therefore have 28 predictions for every single day (the first at 28 days out, then 27, 26 etc.). Over the time I did this, almost every day was at some point in it's 28 day "cycle" included in at least 3 of the four categories. The only exceptions were the middle of summer, where obviously many days were simply locked at "no chance of rain". If I compared the days it actually rained with the predictions, then almost always there had been some prediction of rain that day, but as almost every day had a rain prediction at some point in it's 28 day cycle is this is meaningless! If, however, I looked at how many of the days where rain was predicted compared to actual rain, the results are worse than guesswork. Beyond 28 days, well what can I say? Last year we were predicted (for weeks and months on end, every forecast) higher than average rain. In fact there were very few places that even approached average rain, most fell short by a massive amount. No, we cannot forecast the weather with any degree of accuracy. There is no credibility to be gained by suggesting those same models that cannot predicted 28 days can in fact predicts decades!


greg c wrote:There is a very good reason for this, the very conservative nature of peer reviewed science. Nobody wants their paper to be shown to be wrong by their peers. (Remember the guys who 'discovered' cold fusion in the 1980s). Therefore there is a natural bias to conservative reporting of experimental data. What has happened is as more experiments are carried out, observations used to tweak the models have resulted in the updated predictions tracking the upper edge of the ICCR window. That is why every new report is saying things are worse than previously thought. They are not being cute, things are worse than were first thought. Even more worrying is they will continue to be more pessimistic as time goes by.


Now this statement is entirely true, but it works both ways. A paper that generally agrees with the current view is far less likely to get criticised than one that goes against it. It is also likely to be scrutinised far less than one that goes against popular opinion. But a paper that simply says what everyone else has said does not really stand out, or make news. A paper that goes in the same direction as currently popular, but goes further and makes bigger claims (just a bit bigger each time, we don't want to risk being ridiculed!), no that's a sure-fire winner. And don't be fooled for a moment, scientists like a bit of fame and fortune as much as anyone else - I have a friend who kept her name when she got married, not for any feminist reason but simply because by her own admission she would lose the cachet gained from the papers she had published under her maiden name. A name change would not affect her work, but peer review would go harder on her future papers if she no longer had a "name".

Many of the views expressed on this forum are indicative of this predisposition to believe, where we accept that every new paper is worse than the last one, and instantly write-off as "pseudo-science" a paper that suggests something different. I am less convinced by climate change, and see massive flaws with both sides of the debate. Both sides use only edited data that suits their cause, both use large amounts of extrapolation and make direct comparisons between measurements and data from therotical, estimated or extrapolated sources.

For interest, I am not convinced by the climate change arguments. I have watched many of the people involved move from pollution to holes in the ozone layer to global warming to "climate change" as each topic has faded. I can see too many people standing to gain from "climate change", it is a great enabler for agenda as widespread as vegetarianism and increasing UN power, and therefore is almost too powerful to not gain support. After the large-scale abandonment of religion and the ending of the cold-war, it could be seen as a new "fear" to allow people to be manipulated. These can all be seen as conspiracy theories, yet all potentially have some truth in them.


Edit:
After some consideration, I am still not convinced climate change is man-made. There is evidence that points towards it, and equally evidence that suggests it's not. It is not possible to write either set of evidence off. I suspect we simply do not know enough. As I have said, I do not believe we should continue on our current path, whether man-made climate change is real or not. Unfortunately having read the draft Copenhagen proposal, and the proposed ETS, I can see a great deal of potential for harm, whilst the "positive" outcomes could be achieved in other ways. I still do not think it wise to rush in to damaging legislation, especially when many of the motivators for these changes do not seem related to climate, but in fact often appear driven by other agenda's. There are better ways that will achieve better outcomes!
zzsstt
Solar Crusader
Solar Crusader
 
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 2:27 pm

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby Tracker » Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:28 am

This shows that the average temp track the CO2 concentration quite closely. As you would expect.


Ah.. But - is CO2 tracking Temperature, or Temperature Tracking CO2, or are they both tracking the temperature caused by the Sun?

In that time computer models have been refined as more powerful computers have become available,


observations used to tweak the models have resulted in the updated predictions


A great many have speculated that those involved in Computer-Modeling, start out with a fear and start trying to Prove a Theory, and keep at it, updating their "Model", until they finally get the answer they wanted..

We talk of the latest science on Climate-Change !
Only this week, a leading Scientist said that he has utilised the latest Satellite, to measure the heat-radiation from the earth, and came to the conclusion that there is just as much being radiated/transmitted, back to space, as there has been previously.. That is not saying that there is no Climate-Change, but that the Climate-Change is just that - a periodic and Natural Cause and Effect, that will either go the other way, or will continue (we presume) for as long as the SUN decides what it's preference is..
So , IF the hypothesis is that it IS all a direct result of Solar Irradiance, then can anyone tell me what we can do to control it. Perhaps we will need to start selective Nuclear Explosions, to place "Just the right amount of DUST" into the upper atmosphere to act as a solar blanket, and reducing surface temperatures.
Nuke-Em Ronnie !

the first post, the normal pseudo-science that the climate deniers are peddling. Pseudo-science in this context can be defined as taking a random and irrelevant fact and putting it up against the climate change argument


Is this not what Gory Al did, in only choosing to show the later parts of Historical Graphs and use them to create fear and a greater amount of personal wealth.

Greg, can you honestly say that the correlation of Solar-Activity and Temperature has no significance for Climate Change.. ? and that it's only CO2 that is the problem ?

I think that there is more underground movements that ANY of us realise, and the Tsunami that will result will swamp the highest mountain, and not with sea-water !

Thanks for your thoughts - All Interesting !

I hope our Friend-of-the-Chair is following with interest
Retired Engineer and keen PV experimenter - Always ready to learn and share.
2 x CMS2000 (fan cooled) GCI and SE 170W panels
1.7kW First Solar/Outback Island circuit - Peak Replacement Power
Governments won't save the world :-) They will just TAX it :-(
Tracker
Solar Crusader
Solar Crusader
 
Posts: 5111
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 5:54 am
Location: SYDNEY --- EA - Network, Retailer - EA

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby greg c » Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:04 am

CO2 is a Greenhouse gas. There is no, repeat no dispute over this. Can you directly prove that the moon is responsible for the tides. No but you still believe it (I hope). Same goes for CO2 as a greenhouse gas. We have known this for a very long time. The Earth would not be this warm and life would not have evolved the way it has if there was not a greenhouse effect. It was only after the Mauna Loa observatory started recording CO2 concentrations in the 1950s that we found man was adding to the natural greenhouse effect.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

The ice core samples are not collected near the ocean. They are collected at the ice sheets that are formed from snow fall. So each years fall is covered with the next and the next and so on. The ice sheets are about 3km thick. Gas is trapped there

http://nicl.usgs.gov/index.html

I like Michael Bs comparison to insurance. We don't expect our houses to be damaged or burgled and the vast majority aren't but yet we take out insurance.

In the current situation the thieves have burned down several houses, stolen our water, threaten to damage homes near the ocean, are melting the polar icecap, yet we refuse to take out insurance. We have ample data to show that the thieves are marshaling their forces to do more of the same and yet we still do not take out insurance. We are not even calling the police!.

Wake up

Greg
User avatar
greg c
Solar Evangelist
Solar Evangelist
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 8:03 pm

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby Gordon-Loomberah » Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:26 am

greg c wrote:I like Michael Bs comparison to insurance. We don't expect our houses to be damaged or burgled and the vast majority aren't but yet we take out insurance.


Indeed, and I think the precautionary principle needs to be applied in any case- caution in advance when we dont really know what is coming.
It is a shame that climate change seems to have made us (ie basically governments) lose sight of other problems associated with our excessive use of fossil fuels. Who ever thinks about acid rain these days?

Still, I know that our governments aren't really all that serious about doing anything in Australia, otherwise I would no longer be able to see the glow on my southern horizon from Sydney, 300km away! How many thousand (or million?) tons of coal per year is it taking to maintain than light pollution glow? It is repeated all over the country in big cities... why do they leave the office lights on all night, in case the cleaner comes in? Maybe light switch operation classes should be compulsory at school!

Gordon
http://gunagulla.com Loomberah weather and astronomy including live solar radiation intensity and UV + Gunagulla aquaponics, organic eggs and cherries
User avatar
Gordon-Loomberah
Community Moderator
 
Posts: 5762
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 9:41 pm
Location: Loomberah NSW Australia

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby zzsstt » Sun Nov 01, 2009 11:24 am

Gordon-Loomberah wrote:Still, I know that our governments aren't really all that serious about doing anything in Australia, otherwise I would no longer be able to see the glow on my southern horizon from Sydney, 300km away! How many thousand (or million?) tons of coal per year is it taking to maintain than light pollution glow? It is repeated all over the country in big cities... why do they leave the office lights on all night, in case the cleaner comes in? Maybe light switch operation classes should be compulsory at school!


The one thing that the government can't afford to do is to upset the people who vote for it. As a result, it is very unlikely that any direct action will be taken that will impact on city dwellers, with the possible exception (as we have a Labor government) of the very wealthy suburbs. On the other hand, as far as I am aware there are no rural seats occupied by Labor. Of course, given that the whole of rural NSW now only has a handful of seats in the state parliament, it probably wouldn't matter which party was in control.

Hence the majority of green regulations impact directly on the rural sector, whilst avoiding any immediate affect on the metro areas. Even those regulations that are marketed as being "across the board" tend to impact rural dwellers more. So for example the mooted "per kilometer" vehicle tax will have a greater impact on the rural sector (70km round trip to the shops) than the city dweller (who in any case could take public transport if required.

Does anybody really think that any government has a genuine interest in the environment?
zzsstt
Solar Crusader
Solar Crusader
 
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 2:27 pm

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby zzsstt » Sun Nov 01, 2009 12:56 pm

greg c wrote:CO2 is a Greenhouse gas. There is no, repeat no dispute over this. Can you directly prove that the moon is responsible for the tides. No but you still believe it (I hope). Same goes for CO2 as a greenhouse gas. We have known this for a very long time. The Earth would not be this warm and life would not have evolved the way it has if there was not a greenhouse effect. It was only after the Mauna Loa observatory started recording CO2 concentrations in the 1950s that we found man was adding to the natural greenhouse effect.


CO2 is a greenhouse gas? OK, what we mean by this is that CO2 (and other molecules comprising more than one element) absorb IR radiation, and then re-emit this energy in a random direction. This can indeed be measured in a laboratory. As you are aware, we are told that CO2 accounts for between 9% and 24% of the "greenhouse effect", with water vapor and clouds accounting for up to 85%.

The theory goes that IR radiation from the earth is absorbed by the various greenhouse gases and thus prevented from escaping, or more accurately a proportion of the energy is prevented from escaping at each level of the atmosphere. The theory then goes that if we increase the atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases, this affect increases and more energy is retained. In addition to this, the theory then suggests a positive feedback effect (higher temperature causes more water vapour which retains more heat etc.).

OK, so this all sounds good, albeit that it is only THEORY... all we have proven is that CO2 absorbs IR radiation.


Let me propose a counter argument, just for interest:

CO2 absorbs IR at a small range of frequencies, not across the board. So if we look at the three main peaks of absorption, and remember that light (IR) does not change frequencies for no reason, we find that all the IR energy at these three peaks is absorbed by a given amount of CO2. If we increase the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere, the distance the light has to travel before all the energy in these frequencies is absorbed reduces. So, in simple terms, if there is enough CO2 in the atmsphere currently to absorb all the IR radiation in the frequencies that affect CO2, adding more CO2 will not "retain" and more heat. It has been suggested that at current levels, all the IR radiation in the frequencies absorbed by CO2 will be absorbed by a few meters of atmosphere.

So what we have is a small proportion of the heat radiated from the earth (i.e. a small range wavelengths, not the entire spectrum), being absorbed by CO2 over a short distance, nowhere near the thickness of the atmosphere. And by this theory, increasing the amount of CO2 will simply shorten the distance taken to absorb all this radiation. So it won't cause global warming.

Or:

Presumably, at least to some extent, the same effect occurs at the top of the atmosphere, where CO2 absorbs the same frequencies of incoming sunlight, of which a proportion must logicaly be radiated back in to space? I have not researched this, but by logic alone it would seem plausible. If it is true, then increasing the amount of CO2 in the top layers of the atmosphere would reduce the heat getting to earth by a similar amount to that which any "greenhouse effect" is keeping it here?


OK, if the above is true, then "the greenhouse effect", as related to global warming, really means that an increase in CO2 causes a small proportion of the heat transmitted from the earth as IR radiation to be absorbed slightly closer to the earths surface than it would have been with CO2 at a reduced amount. No net heating is evident from this situation.

Increasing the levels of CO2 would only have a net heating affect if there was currently insufficient in the atmosphere to absorb all the radiation in the frequencies we are talking about. If, as has been suggested, 100% absorption happens over a few meters, then there is clearly more than enough.

So, yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and if we removed it entirely we would get colder. But adding some won't make it hotter.

Now, this argument is apparently invalid because we are told the atmosphere is not saturated, and we have also developed various models that show that the altitude and atmospheric layers where the absorption occurs are important. But in fact all that is happening is that "models" are being developed on both sides. Both sound plausible, both are possible. The models become more complex in order to disprove (or prove) one side of the argument.

PS, I do not know if the atmosphere is actually contains enough CO2 to absorb all the IR in it's absorption bands. There is also the issue of re-radiation in random directions and multi-layered atmospheres with thinning gas densities. Hmm. Maybe a more complex computer model would tell me what I want to hear.... oops, sorry, I meant "give us the answer"....!
zzsstt
Solar Crusader
Solar Crusader
 
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 2:27 pm

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby greg c » Sun Nov 01, 2009 1:29 pm

But we are hotter, you can frantically search for some reason to not blame it on CO2, and of course there are other factors that come into it, but the bottom line is the world is hotter, and the CO2 level is up much higher than it has been in the last 1 million years. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas, the argument stops there. We are fiddling as Rome burns

Don't go and quote me temperatures, look at the environment, every glacier in the world is retreating, Greenland's melt rate is increasing, the Arctic Polar Ice Cap is shrinking and may even be gone in summer after 2015. I mean in 6 years we may have allowed the world to heat up to such an extent that we allowed that to happen. Based on the fact that there are several mammals (polar bear for one) that have adapted to that ecosystem we can assume the ice cap has been there in summer for several million years. Add to that the Polar Ice Cap represents a well understood positive feedback mechanism (aka tipping point) so we are now in very serious and unknown waters. We need to take out insurance urgently.

I agree the chance of any govt action of a level that would do any good is slight. The political system is geared to the short term, the private sector likewise. That does not mean urgent action is not necessary or that the level is impossible and would wreck the economy. I urge all to go to their local library and borrow Spratt, David and Sutton, Philip: Climate Code Red. They argue that what is needed is similar to what prevailed in the WW2 economies, especially the USA. Govt spending on military funding was 42% of GDP by 1943, essentially no private cars were sold in the USA yet the economy grew and unemployment was low. Something similar to that is needed, it does not mean doom and gloom. In the agricultural sector there will be a huge increase in forestry and some farmers in marginal lands would become direct harvesters of solar energy with a much surer income stream than they have at present.

We are naturally very wary of change, but change we must

Greg
User avatar
greg c
Solar Evangelist
Solar Evangelist
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 8:03 pm

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby Tracker » Sun Nov 01, 2009 1:42 pm

greg c wrote:CO2 is a Greenhouse gas. ...... The Earth would not be this warm and life would not have evolved the way it has if there was not a greenhouse effect. It was only after the Mauna Loa observatory started recording CO2 concentrations in the 1950s that we found man was adding to the natural greenhouse effect.....Wake up.....Greg


Water Vapor IS a green house gas.. Methane is also.. Nitrogen and oxygen and all the gases that make up the atmosphere.. Is that not why NASSA gets excited when they find ice (water) on another planet, because it is through WATER, that Hydrogen and Oxygen could be made and these could somehow form other necessary gasses. because they know that if they Nuke the place, then the evaporated water might shroud the planet as a greenhouse gas , and cause it t COOL DOWN..
There is something that just does not ring true in all this scientific conjecture.

in the 1950s that we found man was adding to the natural greenhouse effect

Were we? We were adding Co2 and it was getting hotter - sorta.. Is that complete proof that Co2 was the cause or is there even the faintest possibility that it's actually the SUN..

Is there the vaguest possibility that when those measurements started in the 1950's, that change had been happening in any case, and a rise in anything eg. the Interest rate, could be the cause.. WHY CO2 ???

Interestingly, the point seems to have been lost in the eagerness to argue the point.
( MichaelB - maybe, you were right - there are more against than for)
Gordon, ZST, myself and Greg C, all, likely believe that we MUST do something..
But does that mean that we have to destroy the fabric of our existence on the altar of scientific EGO's..

Can we not just DO IT without all the CRAP.

Image

OK - This is My graph that has been described as "Selective"
It is for the miserable period back to 1880.

Image

Here is your graph of reportedly Co2 concentrations which you believe to be alarming but truthful, and justifying of Global World POLITICAL change via Copenhagen..
It covers a hard to understand period which we presume to be today and back 400,000 years, with an interpretation superimposed for for 1000 years, and suggesting a change from 1800.
We presume that the BLACK line is from 1950, when your measurements started..
YOU SAID it "in the 1950s .. we found man was adding to the natural greenhouse effect"

Is that pale green line , a convenient In-Fill from presumed Pre-Industrial Revolution, to the true Co2 production period AFTER the early 1900.. OR should that graph have continued FLAT for the period up to the 1930/40's and then started to rise, and then been seen by your Mauna Loa Observatory..
Talk about selective interpretation.... We know the rise is from the burning of Fossil Fuels, that really started with the advent of Motor Vehicles and machines, and is now going crazy because the bloody Indonesians (and others) can't control the total destruction of forests etc. etc. ....
so let's just make it look like it started LONG before we started recording it.... Looks Better !


If your graph IS correct, WHY is there no corresponding spike in the US Govt. Temperature graph..
Point out the corresponding SPIKE in temperature, if NOT on this US chart, then on any authenticated temp. graph.
Don't argue with us..

Argue with the US Gov't ., as to why they can accurately throw rocks at Mars, but can't measure the miserable temperature here on earth.

It is my understanding that during the playing of script form George Orwell, "War of the worlds", people were so believing and alarmed at what they heard on the radio, that they were prepared (or did) sacrifice their families, rather than risk the wrath of the murderous invaders..

Are we listening to C.Rudd's own version of "War of the Worlds"?
What will we call it ? "The Gaseous Invasion" "Martian Death-Gas Revenge" -
The prize for the bestest name will be a free EM Solar-Panel Wipe kit !
( otherwise known as a box of tissues )

Ladies and Gentlemen, you are cordially invited to free drinks and rope-less-abseiling lessons, from Westgate Bridge, tonight 1830hrs... Bring your families !

NO - The only plunge that I will be taking is spending money to make myself more self sufficient.

LOL and go give the kidz a hug, because they are getting scared !
Retired Engineer and keen PV experimenter - Always ready to learn and share.
2 x CMS2000 (fan cooled) GCI and SE 170W panels
1.7kW First Solar/Outback Island circuit - Peak Replacement Power
Governments won't save the world :-) They will just TAX it :-(
Tracker
Solar Crusader
Solar Crusader
 
Posts: 5111
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 5:54 am
Location: SYDNEY --- EA - Network, Retailer - EA

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby Tracker » Sun Nov 01, 2009 2:41 pm

greg c wrote:But we are hotter,....... but the bottom line is the world is hotter, and the CO2 level is up........ the argument stops there. We are fiddling as Rome burns
Don't go and quote me temperatures, look at the environment, every glacier in the world is retreating, Greenland's melt rate is increasing, the Arctic Polar Ice Cap is shrinking and may even be gone in summer after 2015.........We need to take out insurance urgently.
.......They argue that what is needed is similar to what prevailed in the WW2 economies, especially the USA. Govt spending on military funding was 42% of GDP by 1943, ....... Something similar to that is needed, it does not mean doom and gloom. In the agricultural sector there will be a huge increase in forestry and some farmers in marginal lands would become direct harvesters of solar energy with a much surer income stream than they have at present.
We are naturally very wary of change, but change we must......Greg


Greg, settle down, or you might just have to have that Westgate-Party..by yourselves !

I think that you are talking about the SAME thing as we are, and we KNOW that it does exist and it IS called Climate-Change. Don't you recall, when they called it Global-Heating, but when the remembered that a few years ago , it was Global-Cooling, they thought they would cover all bases via the word CHANGE

Can you honestly look at that glowing Ball in the sky and say that it has no contribution to the problem?

There are only two recognised situations.
A. Climate Change is caused by a constant and unchanging solar radiation, and, because of a blanket-effect being caused by Co2, the Earth's temperature is rising no CHANGING....
B. Climate Change is caused by temperature change directly caused by an increase in solar radiation (heat).

Take these two scenarios and give me a solution to both problems.

Firstly, there is NO response possible to the Second possibility, other than a partial Nuclear Winter to be created by the World-Government, that Mr.C.Rudd is so keen to initiate.
Secondly, if the temperature rise is as fast and dramatic as you say, then given the destruction of forests in third-world nations, How, in God's name, will anything we can do, change the situation, other that Total destruction and splification of those nations, and the rapid development of peddle-power by Western Nations.

Perhaps we can kill two birds with one stone, and Nuke Indonesia and Burma and let the dust reduce the temp to acceptable levels.

Ronald Regan - why did you die - We need you !

Greg -- What is the average world temperature and how has it changed since 1800.

"Don't go and quote me temperatures, look at the environment,"
but YOU are saying that the increase in Co2 has caused a temperature rise, and you can't tell us what it is, because there is NO temperature rise, just an "unfortunate redistribution" of what we have.

I understand that GreenLand was correctly named at the time.. I understand that ICE IS NOW FORMING in other places. I could go on but you might burst your puffer-valve.

Tell us the temperature, Son, Tell us the Temperature !
Retired Engineer and keen PV experimenter - Always ready to learn and share.
2 x CMS2000 (fan cooled) GCI and SE 170W panels
1.7kW First Solar/Outback Island circuit - Peak Replacement Power
Governments won't save the world :-) They will just TAX it :-(
Tracker
Solar Crusader
Solar Crusader
 
Posts: 5111
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 5:54 am
Location: SYDNEY --- EA - Network, Retailer - EA

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby zzsstt » Sun Nov 01, 2009 3:03 pm

greg c wrote:But we are hotter, you can frantically search for some reason to not blame it on CO2, and of course there are other factors that come into it, but the bottom line is the world is hotter, and the CO2 level is up much higher than it has been in the last 1 million years. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas, the argument stops there. We are fiddling as Rome burns


Al Gore tells us the world is hotter (by 0.57C, an amount that most people are unable to distinguish) and indeed it may well be. CO2 levels are up, though it wasn't until the 50's that we started measuring, and then spent many years tweaking the system to adjust for background noise. But that does not prove cause and effect. By the way, the "marketing" graph of CO2 concentration that we are normally shown is scientifically questionable. The y-axis does not originate at zero, thus making any change look far worse than it is when viewed on a correctly scaled graph. It is also interesting to note that it extends from 1900, when we couldn't accurately measure CO2. Nowhere in the data is it mentioned that the measurement systems changed many times, and various "adjustments" are made to the more recent data to account for short term changes and abberations.

The theories (and especially the IPCC predictions) are all subject to question. Beers law states that the increase in absorption has a logarithmic relationship to concentration, and this is generally agreed to be true even when not talking about pure gases and single wavelengths. As a result it is reasonable to assume that the same log relationship applies to CO2 concentration. Between 1900 and 2000 there was a 70ppm increase in CO2 levels, with a 0.57C increase in temperature. Assuming a proportional (log) increase, if we doubled our current CO2 levels (to be nigh on 800ppm) we would be likely to see a temperature increase of about 1.8C IF CO2 IS INDEED RESPONSIBLE FOR TEMPERATURE INCREASE WHICH IS NOT PROVEN. And because that 0.57C increase is a measured one, it includes all positive feedback affects, so we are automatically factoring them in to the calculation. This does not agree with the IPCC estimate which are massively higher. In fact, back calculating from the IPCC numbers gives (for either linear or log relationships) some interesting numbers for base greenhouse effect that do not agree with generally accepted estimates.

greg c wrote:Don't go and quote me temperatures, look at the environment, every glacier in the world is retreating, Greenland's melt rate is increasing, the Arctic Polar Ice Cap is shrinking and may even be gone in summer after 2015. I mean in 6 years we may have allowed the world to heat up to such an extent that we allowed that to happen. Based on the fact that there are several mammals (polar bear for one) that have adapted to that ecosystem we can assume the ice cap has been there in summer for several million years. Add to that the Polar Ice Cap represents a well understood positive feedback mechanism (aka tipping point) so we are now in very serious and unknown waters. We need to take out insurance urgently.


You are still assuming CO2 is responsible for all this, which is unproven, and that this relatively short lived situation is going to continue. Even if this is all true, we haven't done it in 6 years but basically since we started burning fossil fuels. In fact there are many sets of measured data that suggest the warming phase has ended and we are in fact already starting to cool. It is admittedly hard to tell because it depends where you get measurements from, an issue that impacts the entire 'the world is hotter" concept, by the way.

Please note that positive feedback is not aka tipping point, the two are completely unrelated. In fact it is obvious that there must be a balancing force to the supposed positive feedback, as by your own admission we have seen higher CO2 levels in the past and yet the planet has recovered.

greg c wrote:I agree the chance of any govt action of a level that would do any good is slight. The political system is geared to the short term, the private sector likewise. That does not mean urgent action is not necessary or that the level is impossible and would wreck the economy. I urge all to go to their local library and borrow Spratt, David and Sutton, Philip: Climate Code Red. They argue that what is needed is similar to what prevailed in the WW2 economies, especially the USA. Govt spending on military funding was 42% of GDP by 1943, essentially no private cars were sold in the USA yet the economy grew and unemployment was low. Something similar to that is needed, it does not mean doom and gloom.


Now this I entirely agree with. I for one would like a few tanks, it's so much easier to park when you don't have to worry about denting the paintwork. And, to quote the old saying, "you can never be too rich, too thin or have too many guns". ;) Who do we envisage having a war with, by the way?

On a serious note, I do agree that our society is in need of some change in any number of areas. Unfortunately it is very unlikely to happen, at least in the short term. Even our current climate catastrophe (if one chooses to believe that theory) is now just another money making opportunity!

greg c wrote:In the agricultural sector there will be a huge increase in forestry and some farmers in marginal lands would become direct harvesters of solar energy with a much surer income stream than they have at present.


I do (no joking here!) agree with the solar farms concept, though we must be careful what we call "marginal land" and there are any number of practical and legislative issues to be overcome before it can be made real. The forestry thing is ridiculous, however, for any number of reasons.
zzsstt
Solar Crusader
Solar Crusader
 
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 2:27 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Living Green

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

new solar power specials