Expert: We must act fast on warming

[Gord]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>
Gord, I see your point but you have to admit that if the air warms the ground's heat loss slows and climate warms. I appreciate what you are trying to say, that CO2 isn't causing dangerous warming.
I've discovered that CO2's greenhouse effect is measurable, now I'll focus my quest for experimental tests on feedback, instead of the greenhouse effect. Thank you for your continued arguments, the more I read, the clearer they sound.

Why would you even think that the colder atmosphere would somehow cause the Earth's surface radiation to slow down and cause warming?

How can a cooler atmosphere impede the Earth's radiation when the Earth provides the energy to heat the colder atmosphere?

The Sun HEATED the Earth, and the Earth's radiation HEATED the the atmosphere and all the Radiation is then transferred to cold space.

Look, let's examine a common device known as a Heat Sink.

It is used to cool electronic devices like the Microprocessor in your computer.

The electrical power (Sun) heats the Microprocessor (Earth) just like the Sun heats the Earth.

Lets say the Microprocessor operates with (and has to dissipate) 10 watts of power (Sun) and it's surface area is 0.01 m^2.

The Electromagnetic Field radiated by the Microprocessor (Earth) is 10 Watts/0.01 m^2 = 1000 w/m^2.

The surface temp of the Microprocessor can be calculated by the Stefan - Boltzmann Law.

Power/Area = Boltzmann's Constant X Temp^4
Temp^4 = 1000 w/m^2 / 5.67 X 10^-8 = 1.76 X 10^10
Temp = 364 K or 91 deg C

We want the Microprocessor to drop in temp by placing a Heat Sink on it that will only be heated to 25 deg C or 298 K

A Heat Sink (atmosphere) is initially at room temperature (20 deg C) and is placed on the Microprocessor (Earth) with a slight air gap so heat transfer by radiation is dominant.

The Heat Sink (atmosphere) has to have a larger surface area.
Power/Area = 5.67 X 10^-8 X 298^4 = 447 w/m^2
Area = 10 Watts/447 = 0.022 m^2

The Microprocessor and the Heat Sink will now operate at a temperature of 25 deg C.

So what happened here?

The Electrical power provided is 10 Watts (the Sun).

The Microprocessor (Earth) that was operating at 91 deg C transferred heat energy to the cooler Heat Sink (atmosphere)(initially at 20 deg C) raising it's temp to 25 deg C.

The Microprocessor (Earth) and Heat Sink (atmosphere) stabilize at a temperature of 25 deg C and 10 watts of power is still dissipated to the suroundings (analagous to cold space).

Did the Heat Sink (atmosphere)impede the Microprocessor (Earth) radiation?....Of course NOT!

Did the Heat Sink (atmosphere) cause the Microprocessor (Earth) radiation to "slow down" and increase in temperature?....Of course NOT!...EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OCCURED!
----------
The only difference between this example and the SUN - EARTH - ATMOSPHERE - COLD SPACE system is that the Heat Sink was assumed to have an emissivity of 1.

If the Heat Sink (atmosphere) had an emissivity less than 1 it would not have absorbed all the heat energy of the Microprocessor (Earth) and would have had a temp lower than 25 deg
C....just like the real atmosphere is colder than the Earth.

----------
Heat Sink materials are chosen for their high emissivity.
A material that has a high emissivity will be efficient absorbers and emitters heat energy.

The largest possible value for an emissivity is 1.

If the Heat Sink were a bubble of CO2 covering the Microprocessor the effect would be the same.

The Heat Sink will reduce the temperature of the Microprocessor as long as the Heat Sinks surface areas is greater than the Microprocessors surface area.

If a Heat Sink is further cooled by Fans, Water, Cold Junction semi-conductors, Liquid Nitrogen etc. it will improve the efficiency of the Heat Sink.

Just like the cold atmosphere is for the warmer Earth surface.

[HilaryZ]

So now that we know global climate change is a real issue, we should create ways in order to prevent further damage to the Earth. And we should act now and not later, if we wait then we are moving farther away from our goal that is improving our Earth so that is a livable place for generations ahead. We need to figure out ways to lessen the amount of CO2 emissions into the air from global warming. We can’t do nothing about this problem, if we wait we are just putting the burden of dealing with climate change on future generations and this is "unethical". We can’t sit back and wonder when should we start acting, we need to do it now. Even the simplest things can have an affect if everyone acts. Going green has helped the environment and that is one forward step our society has made, what are more ways that could improve the Earth and steer clear of a total Earth melt down, or ice age? It is very true that there are many other problems in the world but with out a livable planet we have nothing.

[JRS]

HilaryZ wrote:

So now that we know global climate change is a real issue, we should create ways in order to prevent further damage to the Earth. And we should act now and not later, if we wait then we are moving farther away from our goal that is improving our Earth so that is a livable place for generations ahead. We need to figure out ways to lessen the amount of CO2 emissions into the air from global warming. We can’t do nothing about this problem, if we wait we are just putting the burden of dealing with climate change on future generations and this is "unethical". We can’t sit back and wonder when should we start acting, we need to do it now. Even the simplest things can have an affect if everyone acts. Going green has helped the environment and that is one forward step our society has made, what are more ways that could improve the Earth and steer clear of a total Earth melt down, or ice age? It is very true that there are many other problems in the world but with out a livable planet we have nothing.

Dr. Richard Courtney,
a UN IPCC expert reviewer
and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant:

“To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions.”

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm...

==

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…

When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”-

UN IPCC Japanese Scientist
Dr. Kiminori Itoh,
an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm...

[Brett Copeland]

In America 1000 tons of CO2 are released every 5.3 seconds. This means that everyday 16301886.8 tons of CO2 are released. If you are not a believer in global warming then what do you think all this CO2 in are atmosphere will do to us. Our oil dependency honestly needs to go also. In America we use 20,680,000 bbl/day. Oil is not something we can make over night and it will run out eventually. What we need are alternate sources of energy. Solar, wind, geothermal, fusion or biomass, these are all energy sources that are 100% clean and renewable. I mean why not use what the earth makes every day to power the objects that we use every day. This would include geothermal which is heat from deep within the earth. In some locations if the heat source is close enough to the surface geothermal energy can generate electricity. Solar power is very easy to use, just put some solar panels on your roof. If you do, thirty years from now you alone will prevent 202,026lbs of Carbon dioxide from entering the earth’s atmosphere and you will save 74% on your electric bill over 25 years. Wind has normally been criticized because of the amount of wind turbines needed to create sufficient power but recently wind turbines have been made into a small personal home size that can be put on top of your roof. Biomass is the use of any organic matter for energy. This could me plants, animals, yes any organic matter. The energy that was used when the organism was alive is in there somewhere and we have used it for liquid fuels, heat, and electricity. Then we come to the grand daddy of all energy solutions for going green, fusion. Fusion energy consists of turning hydrogen into helium, so it is 100% clean. Fusion is not radioactive like nuclear power plants; actually it is the very type of energy that powers our sun. It is also pretty much infinite because its fuel is hydrogen. The only reason we don’t use it today is simply because we haven’t been able to turn hydrogen into helium yet. This transformation takes massive amounts of heat that essentially makes a miniature sun here on our planet, which is very hard to do. In fact the latest machine that’s been built is 197 giant laser beams pointed at one bb of hydrogen. This machine is dishing out 2000000J of ultraviolet laser on this hydrogen. That’s a lot of energy to even get started but if it works it should give many times more energy than what it consumed. This would be a great step in the fusion development paving the way for the future of electric energy. We would not even need oil in my mind especially with solar power, geothermal, and wind. If fusion power is mastered by the human race we will never have to worry about global warming or energy sources ever again.

[litesong]

Jon24 wrote:

My question revolves around THE ARCTIC not the antarctic. ARCTIC sea ice is larger now than it was 2 years ago. Again if mans CO2 output is causing the ice to melt, temps up everywhere,(except in the US 2nd largest emmission culprit of the globe, because of as aka puts it drift) How is any gain in the ARCTIC possible?

The mechanism works in the Arctic as well as the Antarctic.

No one, not even AGW advocates, have ever said that infra-red energy absorbing CO2 (& other GHG 's) was a strong effect. Several times I & other AGW advocates have stated that infra-red energy absorbing CO2 is a subtle effect, easily overwhelmed by sun changes, PDO shifts, El Nino & La Nino interchanges & weather in general. However, unlike all the effects mentioned which are cyclical, infra-red energy absorbing CO2 effects, by themselves, are one way warming.

As for the Arctic 'gaining' ice, it is easily seen that 2007 Arctic sea ice extent minimum, was not only effected by infra-red energy absorbing CO2, but by a very strong & extended summer Siberian heat wave AND also a shift in weather & sea water flows. The 2007 summer heatwave drove much heat into the Arctic from the vast Siberian mainland. Simultaneously, sea water flows drove an unusual amount Arctic ices out of the Arctic. The 2007 Arctic sea ice extent minimum was indeed, a leap over the yearly slightly decreasing Arctic sea ices due to increasing infra-red energy absorbing CO2.

Of course, the powerful 2007 Siberian heatwave was NOT as strong in 2008 or 2009 & sea water flows were different, leading to increasing sea ice quantities in 2008 & 2009.

However, even with the sun radiating at an extended 2 year minimum, 2 parts per 1000 below normal, the 2008 & 2009 increased sea ice extent minimums have NOT returned to the sea ice average levels of the years, 1979-2000.

[JRS]

Brett Copeland wrote:

In America 1000 tons of CO2 are released every 5.3 seconds. This means that everyday 16301886.8 tons of CO2 are released. If you are not a believer in global warming then what do you think all this CO2 in are atmosphere will do to us. Our oil dependency honestly needs to go also. In America we use 20,680,000 bbl/day. Oil is not something we can make over night and it will run out eventually. What we need are alternate sources of energy. Solar, wind, geothermal, fusion or biomass, these are all energy sources that are 100% clean and renewable. I mean why not use what the earth makes every day to power the objects that we use every day. This would include geothermal which is heat from deep within the earth. In some locations if the heat source is close enough to the surface geothermal energy can generate electricity. Solar power is very easy to use, just put some solar panels on your roof. If you do, thirty years from now you alone will prevent 202,026lbs of Carbon dioxide from entering the earth’s atmosphere and you will save 74% on your electric bill over 25 years. Wind has normally been criticized because of the amount of wind turbines needed to create sufficient power but recently wind turbines have been made into a small personal home size that can be put on top of your roof. Biomass is the use of any organic matter for energy. This could me plants, animals, yes any organic matter. The energy that was used when the organism was alive is in there somewhere and we have used it for liquid fuels, heat, and electricity. Then we come to the grand daddy of all energy solutions for going green, fusion. Fusion energy consists of turning hydrogen into helium, so it is 100% clean. Fusion is not radioactive like nuclear power plants; actually it is the very type of energy that powers our sun. It is also pretty much infinite because its fuel is hydrogen. The only reason we don’t use it today is simply because we haven’t been able to turn hydrogen into helium yet. This transformation takes massive amounts of heat that essentially makes a miniature sun here on our planet, which is very hard to do. In fact the latest machine that’s been built is 197 giant laser beams pointed at one bb of hydrogen. This machine is dishing out 2000000J of ultraviolet laser on this hydrogen. That’s a lot of energy to even get started but if it works it should give many times more energy than what it consumed. This would be a great step in the fusion development paving the way for the future of electric energy. We would not even need oil in my mind especially with solar power, geothermal, and wind. If fusion power is mastered by the human race we will never have to worry about global warming or energy sources ever again.

Basically what the babbling AGW CO2 idiots say in summary: I want free energy, and what other people have that I can take. If that takes phony science and tantrums then so be it. Give me, give me, give me.

==

"No matter if the science is all phony, there [are] collateral environmental benefits...climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."

Christine Stewart,
Canadian Environment Minister,
Calgary Herald, December 14, 1998

http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/endangered/esahi...

[JRS]

litesong wrote:

<quoted text>
The mechanism works in the Arctic as well as the Antarctic.
No one, not even AGW advocates, have ever said that infra-red energy absorbing CO2 (& other GHG 's) was a strong effect. Several times I & other AGW advocates have stated that infra-red energy absorbing CO2 is a subtle effect, easily overwhelmed by sun changes, PDO shifts, El Nino & La Nino interchanges & weather in general. However, unlike all the effects mentioned which are cyclical, infra-red energy absorbing CO2 effects, by themselves, are one way warming.
As for the Arctic 'gaining' ice, it is easily seen that 2007 Arctic sea ice extent minimum, was not only effected by infra-red energy absorbing CO2, but by a very strong & extended summer Siberian heat wave AND also a shift in weather & sea water flows. The 2007 summer heatwave drove much heat into the Arctic from the vast Siberian mainland. Simultaneously, sea water flows drove an unusual amount Arctic ices out of the Arctic. The 2007 Arctic sea ice extent minimum was indeed, a leap over the yearly slightly decreasing Arctic sea ices due to increasing infra-red energy absorbing CO2.
Of course, the powerful 2007 Siberian heatwave was NOT as strong in 2008 or 2009 & sea water flows were different, leading to increasing sea ice quantities in 2008 & 2009.
However, even with the sun radiating at an extended 2 year minimum, 2 parts per 1000 below normal, the 2008 & 2009 increased sea ice extent minimums have NOT returned to the sea ice average levels of the years, 1979-2000.

The remote populationless poles are a great reference when trying to further a scam. People do not see it every day on the way to work to see the truth.

Meanwhile what they do see on the way to work says the AGW crisis peddlers are full of crap.

==

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…

When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”-

UN IPCC Japanese Scientist
Dr. Kiminori Itoh,
an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm...

[litesong]

JRS wrote:

.... what they do see on the way to work says the AGW crisis peddlers are full of..........

oh,oh.......here's what people saw in western Washington on the way to work..........
1. Winter rainfall levels in Hood Canal that rivaled the mountain pounding snow melting rainfalls that make severe winter floods tough to bet against.
2. A one in a 500 year burst of rain that poured off the small Willapa hills that closed I-5 for a week, but devastated the valley for years.
3. Five & a half months of well above & even record day & morning temperatures.
4. After a beginning winter of bare mountains, snowfall levels that, for months longer than normal, kept the mountains unvisitable.
Despite the sun radiating 2 parts per 1000 below normal, weather as been.....energetic in our area that is 0.02% of the Earth's surface.
In other parts of the Earth, the Philippines has been hit by 28 inches of intense rain. Two Australian summers have produced near record AND record day & morning temperatures in long extended summer heats. Siberian heat has had such high temperatures that excess heat is pouring into the Arctic. Of course, many know of the decades long sea ice extent minimums. But, in the long enduring & total darknesses of Arctic winter, heat fronts cover the entire 18 million square mile Arctic, bringing Arctic sea ice freezing to a stop. One occurrence lasted for 11 days. Total ocean tempertures have been at their highest.
Again, all this while the sun is radiating 2 parts per 1000 below normal.

[ronnnie]

Brett Copeland wrote:

In America 1000 tons of CO2 are released every 5.3 seconds. This means that everyday 16301886.8 tons of CO2 are released. If you are not a believer in global warming then what do you think all this CO2 in are atmosphere will do to us.

Though the post is not directed at me
(Global Warming is a fact, IMO),
I wish to respond.

If Man triples the atmosphere's concentration of CO2 to 1200ppm then what it will "do to us" will be: a world that is prettier, healthier, and happier.

Thousands of independent experiments has confirmed this fact.

Post Script:
CO2 is not pollution below 1200ppm (conservatively speaking).

[ronnnie]

litesong wrote:

<quoted text>
oh,oh.......here's what people saw in western Washington on the way to work..........
1. Winter rainfall levels in Hood Canal that rivaled the mountain pounding snow melting rainfalls that make severe winter floods tough to bet against.
2. A one in a 500 year burst of rain that poured off the small Willapa hills that closed I-5 for a week, but devastated the valley for years.
3. Five & a half months of well above & even record day & morning temperatures.
4. After a beginning winter of bare mountains, snowfall levels that, for months longer than normal, kept the mountains unvisitable.
Despite the sun radiating 2 parts per 1000 below normal, weather as been.....energetic in our area that is 0.02% of the Earth's surface.
In other parts of the Earth, the Philippines has been hit by 28 inches of intense rain. Two Australian summers have produced near record AND record day & morning temperatures in long extended summer heats. Siberian heat has had such high temperatures that excess heat is pouring into the Arctic. Of course, many know of the decades long sea ice extent minimums. But, in the long enduring & total darknesses of Arctic winter, heat fronts cover the entire 18 million square mile Arctic, bringing Arctic sea ice freezing to a stop. One occurrence lasted for 11 days. Total ocean tempertures have been at their highest.
Again, all this while the sun is radiating 2 parts per 1000 below normal.

...Look at the weather! Clear evidence of Global warming which supports AGW computer models.

But wait, what about the cooler weather other parts of the northern hemisphere experienced in the summer of 2009 that does not support computer models?

Well clearly, it means nothing... that is weather - not climate.

Such rationale is fascinating.

[Earthling]

ronnnie wrote:

...Look at the weather! Clear evidence of Global warming which supports AGW computer models.
But wait, what about the cooler weather other parts of the northern hemisphere experienced in the summer of 2009 that does not support computer models?
Well clearly, it means nothing... that is weather - not climate.
Such rationale is fascinating.

Haven't you learned yet that it's OK for alarmists to talk about weather when it suits them, but not sceptics?

[Brian_G]

If a living creature could control climate, it would have evolved long ago. All our technologies are pale imitations of the things evolution has long ago developed.

Climate forces us to adapt, we don't control it; it controls us.

[LessHypeMoreFact]

Jon24 wrote:

<quoted text>
Except, as more water vapor saturates the air,

Irrational gibberish. Higher temperatures can increase ABSOLUTE humidity, so yes there is more water vapor *WHERE THERE IS OPEN WATER* but this doesn't change relative humidity since the warmer air can HOLD more water and the evaporation rates are generally based on formula that include RELATIVE humidity as a factor.

Jon24 wrote:

<quoted text>
the more dense it becomes.

Slightly, but as a well mixed gas, this has no signficant effect on precipitation. Precipitation is triggered by changes in temperature that push relative humidity past 100%. THis is mostly dependent on local wind patterns and geography.

Jon24 wrote:

<quoted text>
Which would mean more rain,

Irrational gibberish. This seems to signify only that you have less than a grade school graduate education.

Jon24 wrote:

<quoted text>
that would create a cooling effect.

Precipitation actually heats the air due to the 'heat of evaporation' being removed. This is what drives hurricanes and other cyclonic storms. So oppposite of what you claim. The 'cooling' after a rainstorm comes from the precipitated water re-evaporating.

[Eighthman]

New songs by Bono about himself and "FATHER" Al Gore the "Phony Balony".
Gore was judged a phony by a British court, Not by me.

"Bullsh!t the Blue Sky"
Gullible Children of the Revolution
Not even close to the Real Thing
Gullible Son
Happiness was a Warm Globe
I believe in Father Warming
I wish I didn't find what I was looking for.
I will follow...Gore
Fool of the Species
Imperfect Day
Race against gullibility
Bullsh!t the Children
Until the falsified end of the World
With or without Gore

[ephotonic]

Jon24 wrote:

<quoted text>
Except, as more water vapor saturates the air, the more dense it becomes. Which would mean more rain, that would create a cooling effect.

Condensation is exothermic, so when water vapor condenses, it realeases heat.

[litesong]

Earthling wrote:

....it's OK for alarmists to talk about weather, but not sceptics?

First glimmer of understanding comes to you. Tho it's been a long road, for dirtling, earthling has no brain, it is a high accomplishment!

We still have your wordage to correct, tho. We are AGW advocates & I predict you will always be a denier.

[tutonic prince]

littlevoice wrote:

I found this today when i was looking for something else and decided to give my 2 cents worth. You can listen to the so called "experts" or you can look up the true information for yourself--if you have the guts. You can input any city into your computer and locate all on record temps since they started recording them and see that global warming is not truly happening. I did a 2 month study on this and did not rely on "experts" opinions or theories.

.
..LIL,I came to the same conclusion.We are exactly where we should be in our temp cycle.HIGH TEMPS WITH IMMINATE COOLING

[The Antartican Bigot]

Are there people who are still worried about this complete load of shit issue?? Seriously!? GW is such a load of shit! I seriously can't believe that people really think this is a real problem.

[The Antartican Bigot]

I better not tell them the moon falling or all hell will break loose.

[ephotonic]

The Antartican Bigot wrote:

I better not tell them the moon falling or all hell will break loose.

And if it actually was, you wouldn't believe it anyway.