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 Gordon-Loomberah » Wed Jan 13, 2010 4:52 pm

moemoke wrote:As the world is laying more roads in the name of 'progress', ripping up more forests etc,
is the extra radiant heat warming things up?


Yes it is, they are known as urban heat islands. Temeratures in large urban areas are increasing faster than rural areas. There has been quite a bit of research into the effect on local weather that I am aware of, and no doubt, the effect on climate change too.

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: 5754
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 9:41 pm
Location: Loomberah NSW Australia

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby BarKing » Wed Jan 13, 2010 7:16 pm

moemoke wrote:As the world is laying more roads in the name of 'progress', ripping up more forests etc,
is the extra radiant heat warming things up?

There is a world wide push for what is called Cool Roofs - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_roofs. It has even hit Melbourne - http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/time-to-paint-melbourne-white-robert-doyle/story-e6frf7jo-1225814264802.

Cool roofs would be beneficial for decreasing urban heat island effect and also for decreasing building cooling costs.

The same principle applies to roads. Lighter coloured roads, which could be achieved with the use of lighter coloured sealing aggregates, would reflect more heat than black roads.

It has been implicated in contributing to global warming - but perhaps not as much as other factors.
BarKing
Solar Supporter
Solar Supporter
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 10:20 am

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby zzsstt » Thu Jan 14, 2010 10:05 am

A subject for more research?

Reflecting heat certainly keeps houses or roads cool, but does that reflected energy radiate back to space or is it captured in the atmosphere on the way up? If the specific heat capacity of the "ground" is higher than that of the atmopshere, then reflecting heat (if it doesn't escape back in to space) may heat the atmosphere more?

Is the warming of the atosphere matched by warming of the ground (below a meter or so)? We are told that the subsoil temperature varies very little. If we attribute atmospheric warming to heat from the sun (rather than heat from the planets core) then surely we need to make sure that reflecting it away from the ground actually helps? Perhaps using the ground as a heatsink would reduce atmospheric warming..........
zzsstt
Solar Crusader
Solar Crusader
 
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 2:27 pm

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby Gordon-Loomberah » Thu Jan 14, 2010 10:48 am

zzsstt wrote:Perhaps using the ground as a heatsink would reduce atmospheric warming..........


The oceans have vastly greater heat storing capacity than the land masses or atmosphere, and they are already heating up. Since the deep (under ~2m) soil temperatures are usually close to the annual average temperature for most places, there's probably not a lot more that could be done to store heat in the ground anyway, as it aleady happens through natural processes such as conductivity.

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: 5754
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 9:41 pm
Location: Loomberah NSW Australia

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby BarKing » Thu Jan 14, 2010 2:17 pm

zzsstt wrote:Reflecting heat certainly keeps houses or roads cool, but does that reflected energy radiate back to space or is it captured in the atmosphere on the way up?

My understanding is that the solar radiation would be reflected back at the same wavelengths that it came into the earth's atmosphere. So therefore those reflected wavelengths when going back up through the atmosphere are not absorbed in great quantities.

When Solar radiation hits a surface with low reflectivity (such as a black asphalt road) most of it is absorbed, heating the material. The surface of that hot material then radiates but now the radiation is primarily in the infrared spectrum - long wave lengths. It is the infrared spectrum that can be captured by the Greenhouse gases - contributing to global warming.

The oceans and the earth have a large heat capacity (and the melting of the ice caps contribute substantially to this capacity due to latent heat capacity effects of melting ice - a lot of energy is absorbed when melting ice). This heat capacity is one of the reasons global warming has not impacted more - there is a substantial lag effect. The heat capacity while large is only finite - so can not keep absorbing heat on an open ended basis.
BarKing
Solar Supporter
Solar Supporter
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 10:20 am

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby zzsstt » Thu Jan 14, 2010 3:50 pm

BarKing wrote:My understanding is that the solar radiation would be reflected back at the same wavelengths that it came into the earth's atmosphere. So therefore those reflected wavelengths when going back up through the atmosphere are not absorbed in great quantities.


I think that's basically what happens, except that it would appear that a fair amount of visbile light is in fact absorbed by the atmosphere. This graph (admittedly on wiki!) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png would indicate that between 25% and 33% of visible light is absorbed in the atmosphere. It would seem likely that a similar amount would be absorbed on the way back? The IR frequencies that are absorbed by the atmosphere "on the way down" are likely to also be absorbed (if energy is radiated by the black surface at those frequencies) but the subject is muddied by the molecular absorption and "reradiation in a random direction" of IR energy.

BarKing wrote:The oceans and the earth have a large heat capacity (and the melting of the ice caps contribute substantially to this capacity due to latent heat capacity effects of melting ice - a lot of energy is absorbed when melting ice). This heat capacity is one of the reasons global warming has not impacted more - there is a substantial lag effect. The heat capacity while large is only finite - so can not keep absorbing heat on an open ended basis.


I'm not a big believer in the "science" behind man-made global warming*, but the concept that anything with a large specific heat capacity will change temperature quite slowly when exposed to minor energy addition or loss is indeed accurate.

*Today I read that the entire peer review process behind the "thousands of scientists" that contribute to the IPCC actually comes down to:

1/ about 600 people contributed

2/ only 68 of these agreed in their original contributions that man was the probable cause of "climate change"

3/ only 43 people provided the "peer reviewing", and these people extracted the data they wanted to publish form the original 600 contributors.

I do not know how true the above is, but I have read previously that many people walked away from the process or requested their "contributions" be removed due to the editing and out-of-context usage of data.
zzsstt
Solar Crusader
Solar Crusader
 
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 2:27 pm

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby Tracker » Mon Jan 25, 2010 5:05 pm

.
Interested in "Climate-Change" ???

Have a listen to the Podcast of 25th Jan

Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:47:00
Alan Jones talks to Lord Christopher Monckton

http://www.2gb.com/index.php?option=com_podcasting&task=view&id=2&Itemid=41

Very Interesting !!!
.
..
AND - If you are interested, he is talking to people on Wed 27th at 1730 at the "Sheraton on the park", Sydney.. I'll be there..!
.
..
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 Joey » Wed Jan 27, 2010 1:34 am

Tracker wrote:.
Interested in "Climate-Change" ???

Have a listen to the Podcast of 25th Jan

Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:47:00
Alan Jones talks to Lord Christopher Monckton

http://www.2gb.com/index.php?option=com_podcasting&task=view&id=2&Itemid=41

Very Interesting !!!
.
..
AND - If you are interested, he is talking to people on Wed 27th at 1730 at the "Sheraton on the park", Sydney.. I'll be there..!
.
..


Great interview , about time people starting talking about the truth and facts , cant believe how many have been sucked in by the global warming , excess carbon emissions con!
Joey
Solar Crusader
Solar Crusader
 
Posts: 523
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 11:24 pm

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby zzsstt » Wed Jan 27, 2010 8:03 am

I read with interest a statement by the head of the IPCC who said that the massive error in their statement that the Himalayan glaciers could be completely gone by 2035 was down to "human error".

With all their supposed checking and peer reviewing, they published this statement which the authors have now admitted was based on a news report, which in turn was based on a short telephone conversation with a little known Indian scientist, who in turns admits it was pure speculation and not based on any formal research.

I have in the past said that what the IPCC call "science" is in no way related to the definition of science that was in use when I was a "scientist". I have also made reference to the nature of "peer revewing" when undertaken by a small group of individuals with similar beliefs and a definite agenda. Additionally I have made comments about the financial gains being made by climate scientists, and once again in this case the claim that these glaciers will disappear by 2035 was used to obtain funding by TERI for glacial studies. Of course the chairman of the IPCC, Dr Pachauri, is a paid employee of TERI....

It would seem to me that this glacier situation is complete proof that my suspicions are well founded. An utterly unfounded claim that originated as a speculative comment in a phone call has been published by the IPCC as "fact", and has passed the entire peer reviewing and editing process simply because it is what they want to hear!

Worse still is the statement by the head of the IPCC, which if translated from the original butt-covering politically correct nonsense, basically says "the numbers are not important, there is still a problem". I have a couple of issues with that statement. Firstly, if he doesn't have any geniune numbers how does he know there is a problem? Secondly, it confirms once again that the people pushing the agenda are in no way bound by trivia such as truth or accuracy and are happy to say and publish anything that will assist their cause. That (sadly) might be the norm for a political party, but these people are supposedly acting as an unbiased scientific authority on the subject.......
zzsstt
Solar Crusader
Solar Crusader
 
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 2:27 pm

Re: Global Warming or Cooling

Postby Icarus » Wed Jan 27, 2010 7:26 pm

well actually it was a typo that glaciers would be gone by 2350 and not 2035 , it was point out by the reviewers of this section but the head wanted it left that way to get some ergentcy and get people to take notice , now really I agree it should not be done like this , but still the studies still found that the glaciers would be drasticly reduce by 2350 is that really any better just because we will be dead !! .

also on Alan Jones, Monckton said Stern was not even an economist just a civil servant , does he forget he served as a Professor of Economics at the University of Warwick from 1978 to 1987 , and the Chief Economist and Senior Vice-President of the World Bank from 2000 to 2003 so i think he was a bit more than a civil servant .
Icarus
Solar Crusader
Solar Crusader
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:42 pm
Location: Woy Woy NSW

PreviousNext

Return to Living Green

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

new solar power specials