Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

The earth's atmosphere is not homogeneous with regard to its temperatures and the densities of molecules contained within it. Generally, the farther from the equator is a region of the atmoshere, the lower its temperature, and the farther from the surface is a region, the lower its temperature; and the warmer is a region, the less dense are the molecules contained within it.

The density of CO2 molecules in a region of the atmosphere is reduced whenever:
(1) H2O molecules are evaporated into that region of the atmosphere; and,
(2) H2O-CO2 molecular mixtures are precipitated from that region of the atmosphere.

Whenever the density of CO2 molecules in a region of the atmosphere is reduced, the heat absorbtion by CO2 in that region of the atmosphere is reduced.

Whenever a region of the atmosphere is not saturated, H2O molecules are evaporated into it from the earth's surface.

Whenever a region of the atmosphere becomes over saturated, H2O-CO2 molecular mixtures are precipitated from it.

Whenever more H2O molecules are in a region of the atmosphere than that region can hold, it becomes over saturated, .

Whenever the temperature of a saturated region of the atmosphere decreases, it becomes over saturated.

Consequently, the natural action of over saturated atmospheric regions is to reduce the H2O-CO2 molecular mixtures that collect in them.

The big question then, is whether or not say twice the CO2 so far caused to be emitted by humans into the atmosphere can ever reach a sufficient average atmospheric density to cause the heat absorbtions by those CO2 molecules to in turn cause the earth to warm by as much as 1 degree Fahrenheit?

Frankly, I think no one has yet provided persuasive evidence that humans have caused a CO2 atmospheric density sufficient to have caused earth warming by as much as even 0.1 degree Fahrenheit.

0 Replies

So from your observations, do you think it logical that the CO2 increase results primarily from a temperature increase, rather than the other way around? Instead of being a cause, is it one of the effects? I know this has been proposed as an alternative interpretation in regard to historical fluctuations of CO2 and temperature.

I have obviously been a skeptic of man caused global warming from the very beginning for many reasons, but the one measurement that does bother me is the apparent slow but steady and consistent rise in CO2 measurements. I keep looking for an apparent subtle change in this trend, but so far it seems headed in the same direction. It is not anywhere near a level to cause alarm and I don't think it ever will, but nevertheless, I am looking for better scientific understanding of this variable.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

So from your observations, do you think it logical that the CO2 increase results primarily from a temperature increase, rather than the other way around? Instead of being a cause, is it one of the effects? I know this has been proposed as an alternative interpretation in regard to historical fluctuations of CO2 and temperature.

I have obviously been a skeptic of man caused global warming from the very beginning for many reasons, but the one measurement that does bother me is the apparent slow but steady and consistent rise in CO2 measurements. I keep looking for an apparent subtle change in this trend, but so far it seems headed in the same direction. It is not anywhere near a level to cause alarm and I don't think it ever will, but nevertheless, I am looking for better scientific understanding of this variable.

Yes, I think it logical (but not necessarily scientifically provable at this time) that "the CO2 increase results primarily from a temperature increase"--but the temperature increase of what?

Here's how!

CO2 does dissolve in liquid H2O--for example, carbonated soda is CO2 dissolved in water. Increasing temperatures of surface water can increase its evaporation. When the H2O in say the ocean surface evaporates, at least some, if not all, the CO2 dissolved in the ocean's liquid H2O is retained by that same evaporated H2O in a mixture of CO2-H20. The more such evaporation occurs, the more CO2 molecules there will be in the atmosphere. The more CO2 and H2O molecules in the atmosphere, the more heat absorbtion there will be in the atmosphere, and subsequently via infrared radiation from H2O and CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, the more heat there will be absorbed by the earth.

The question then occurs: where did that CO2 dissolved in ocean water come from? We're back to the same sources discussed before: Volcanoes, earthquakes, meteorites, lightning caused combustion, spontaneous combustion, human caused combustion, and animal-- including human-- exhalations. Is the human caused combustion the biggest or smallest or in between cause of CO2 in the ocean? I don't have enough evidence to deduce an answer scientifically one way or the other. As I said before, I think no one else has enough scientific evidence to show that the cause of the CO2 increase is primarily human caused combustion.

Some people allege that since the CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, and human caused CO2 is increasing, and the earth's atmoshere has allegedly warmed about 1 degreee Fahrenheit in the last 100 years, human caused CO2 is the primary cause. That allegation absent scientific evidence to support it, is clearly scientifically irrational. I could just as irrationally blame 99.9% of that CO2 increase on all the forest fires, that have occurred worldwide over the last 100 years.

0 Replies

If the behavior of the most important co2 sinks (such as the oceans) change, because of atmospheric conditions, such as humidity, or possibly because of temperature of the ocean, or other factors, perhaps this has alot more to do with CO2 in the atmosphere than how much co2 is being produced? You have just described possible mechanisms that affect the behavior of the sink, mechanisms that are poorly understood or quantified. I find it rather hard to believe that the behavior of the sink or the ability to soak up co2 would remain constant, so I tend to think its behavior is perhaps far more variable and important than so far being understood or calculated?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

If the behavior of the most important co2 sinks (such as the oceans) change, because of atmospheric conditions, such as humidity, or possibly because of temperature of the ocean, or other factors, perhaps this has alot more to do with CO2 in the atmosphere than how much co2 is being produced? You have just described possible mechanisms that affect the behavior of the sink, mechanisms that are poorly understood or quantified. I find it rather hard to believe that the behavior of the sink or the ability to soak up co2 would remain constant, so I tend to think its behavior is perhaps far more variable and important than so far being understood or calculated?

I bet you're right!

But that may be irrelevant to those who have adopted the CO2 Religion. It's clearly thought by Al Gore to be irrelevant, 'cause he said as much.

0 Replies

Whoops! It just occurred to me that the earth's oceans have been absorbing and evaporating CO2 for quite a while more than the last 250,000 years, much less 100 years. Shocked

In other words, CO2 has been accumulating in the earth's oceans for a very long time.

0 Replies

A bit of information on possible historical levels of CO2, showing we are relatively historical lows right now, compared to several thousand ppm at various points of geologic time:

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Oh, by the way, here is information on 19,000 scientists that don't necessarily agree with the so called consensus of the man caused global warming political agenda.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

0 Replies

Global Climate Coalition
Founded in 1989 by 46 corporations and trade associations representing all major elements of US industry, the GCC presents itself as a "voice for business in the global warming debate." The group funded several flawed studies on the economics of the cost of mitigating climate change, which formed the basis of their 1997/1998 multi-million dollar advertising campaign against the Kyoto Protocol. The GCC began to unravel in 1997 when British Petroleum withdrew its membership. Since then many other corporations have followed BP s lead and left the coalition. This exodus reached a fevered pitch in the early months of 2000 when DaimlerChrysler, Texaco and General Motors all announced their exodus from the GCC. Since these desertions, the GCC restructured and remains a powerful and well-funded force focused on obstructing meaningful efforts to mitigate climate change.

Spin: Global Warming is real, but it is too expensive to do anything about. The Kyoto Protocol is fundamentally flawed.

Funding: Corporate members (industries, trade associations etc.)

George Marshall Institute
This conservative think tank shifted its focus from Star Wars to climate change in the late 1980s. In 1989, the Marshall Institute released a report claiming that "cyclical variations in the intensity of the sun would offset any climate change associated with elevated greenhouse gases." Though refuted by the IPCC, the report was very influential in influencing the Bush Sr. Administration s climate change policy. The Marshall Institute has since published numerous reports downplaying the severity of global climate change.

Spin: Blame the Sun. The Kyoto Protocol is fatally flawed.

Affiliated Individuals: Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist from Harvard; and Frederick Seitz.

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
The Marshall Institute co-sponsored with the OISM a deceptive campaign -- known as the Petition Project -- to undermine and discredit the scientific authority of the IPCC and to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. Early in the spring of 1998, thousands of scientists around the country received a mass mailing urging them to sign a petition calling on the government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was accompanied by other pieces including an article formatted to mimic the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequent research revealed that the article had not been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor even accepted for publication in that journal and the Academy released a strong statement disclaiming any connection to this effort and reaffirming the reality of climate change. The Petition resurfaced in 2001.

Spin: There is no scientific basis for claims about global warming. IPCC is a hoax. Kyoto is flawed.

Funding: Petition was funded by private sources.

Affiliated Individuals: Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Frederick Seitz

Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
Founded in 1990 by widely publicized climate skeptic S. Fred Singer, SEPP s stated purpose is to "document the relationship between scientific data and the development of federal environmental policy." SEPP has mounted a sizeable media campaign -- publishing articles, letters to the editor, and a large number of press releases -- to discredit the issues of global warming, ozone depletion, and acid rain.

Spin: Moreover, climate change won t be bad for us anyway. Action on climate change is not warranted because of shaky science and flawed policy approaches.

Funding: Conservative foundations including Bradley, Smith Richardson, and Forbes. SEPP has also been directly tied to ultra right-wing mogul Reverend Sung Myung Moon s Unification Church, including receipt of a year s free office space from a Moon-funded group and the participation of SEPP s director in church-sponsored conferences and on the board of a Moon-funded magazine.

Affiliated Individuals:S. Fred Singer,Frederick Seitz

Greening Earth Society
The Greening Earth Society (GES) was founded on Earth Day 1998 by the Western Fuels Association to promote the view that increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 are good for humanity. GES and Western Fuels are essentially the same organization. Both used to be located at the same office suite in Arlington, VA. Until December 2000, Fred Palmer chaired both institutions. The GES is now chaired by Bob Norrgard, another long-term Western Fuels associate. The Western Fuels Assocation (WFA) is a cooperative of coal-dependent utilities in the western states that works in part to discredit climate change science and to prevent regulations that might damage coal-related industries.

Spin: CO2 emissions are good for the planet; coal is the best energy source we have.

Affiliated Individuals: Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling, David Wojick, Sallie Baliunas, Sylvan Wittwer, John Daley, Sherwood Idso

Funding: The Greening Earth Society receives its funding from the Western Fuels Association, which in turn receives its funding from its coal and utility company members.

Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide & Global Change
The Center claims to "disseminate factual reports and sound commentary on new developments in the world-wide scientific quest to determine the climactic and biological consequences of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content." The Center is led by two brothers, Craig and Keith Idso. Their father, Sherwood Idso, is affiliated with the Greening Earth Society; the Center also shares a board member (Sylvan Wittwer) with GES. Both Idso brothers have been on the Western Fuels payroll at one time or another.

Spin: Increased levels of CO2 will help plants, and that's good.

Funding: The Center is extremely secretive of its funding sources, stating that it is their policy not to divulge it funders. There is evidence for a strong connection to the Greening Earth Society (ergo Western Fuels Association).

Affiliated Individuals: Craig Idso, Keith Idso, Sylvan Wittwer

UPDATE:

butterfly links
UCS Global Warming Program
ExxonMobil Report: Smoke Mirrors & Hot AirThe Union of Concerned Scientists report, Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to "Manufacture Uncertainty" on Climate Change, details how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science. See the report for a list of these organizations.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/skeptic-organizations.html

0 Replies

Quote:

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has committed the UK to reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 60% before 2050 to help tackle global warming.

The Climate Change Bill will make the UK the first country to put carbon emissions reduction targets into law.

An independent committee on climate change will be set up to advise on "five-year carbon budgets" - part of a new commitment to carbon reduction.

Environmentalists welcomed the move, but said higher targets were needed.

While the bill will also enforce reductions of greenhouse gas emissions of between 26% and 32% by 2020, Mr Brown previously said he would consult the new committee to see if bigger reductions were required.

Green campaigners have urged the government to go further.

A report from think tank the Institute for Public Policy Research, the RSPB and WWF on Monday claimed the government's 60% target did not go far enough.

Instead, it claimed Britain could achieve an 80% cut by 2050.

Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, said he was "delighted" the UK was to become the first country "to introduce legislation to cut its contribution to climate change".

"But the government must strengthen its proposed legislation if it is to be truly effective and deliver the scale of action that scientists are now calling for."

Brown said the economic consequences of not taking radical action now would be the same as world war and economic depression striking simultaneously.

0 Replies

Al Gore and his followers are perpetrating a lie of biblican proportions.

He really is the P.T. Barnum of the modern age.

0 Replies

I have no idea who or what is al gore and care less

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Al Gore and his followers are perpetrating a lie of biblican proportions.
.

How many carbon dioxide atoms can you march, two by two, into a cubit before the canaries die and the elephants start farting really badly?

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Al Gore and his followers are perpetrating a lie of biblican proportions.

That's quite a statement, considering how much misinformation the Bible propagates.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

cjhsa wrote:
Al Gore and his followers are perpetrating a lie of biblican proportions.

That's quite a statement, considering how much misinformation the Bible propagates.

I'm guessing that cjhsa attends the same bible study class as Bill O'Reilly... http://mediamatters.org/items/200711160009?f=h_top

0 Replies

YES, THE ALLEGATION THAT HUMANS ARE CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX!

okie wrote:

... here is information on 19,000 scientists that don't necessarily agree with the so called consensus of the man caused global warming political agenda.

Quote:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/
Global Warming Petition
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

Quote:

This petition has been signed by over 19,000 American scientists.

Quote:

Letter from Frederick Seitz

Research Review of Global Warming Evidence

Enclosed is a twelve-page review of information on the subject of "global warming," a petition in the form of a reply card, and a return envelope. Please consider these materials carefully.
The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.

This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.

The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries.

It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.

We urge you to sign and return the petition card. If you would like more cards for use by your colleagues, these will be sent.

Frederick Seitz
Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.
President Emeritus, Rockefeller University

Then read this link provided by okie:

Quote:

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
Climate and the Carboniferous Period

West Virginia today is mostly an erosional plateau carved up into steep ridges and narrow valleys, but 300 million years ago, during the Carboniferous Period, it was part of a vast equatorial coastal swamp extending many hundreds of miles and barely rising above sea level. This steamy, tropical quagmire served as the nursery for Earth's first primitive forests, comprised of giant lycopods, ferns, and seed ferns.

North America was located along Earth's equator then, courtesy of the forces of continental drift. The hot and humid climate of the Middle Carboniferous Period was accompanied by an explosion of terrestrial plant life. However by the Late Carboniferous Period Earth's climate had become increasingly cooler and drier. By the beginning of the Permian Period average global temperatures declined by about 10° C.

Interestingly, the last half of the Carboniferous Period witnessed periods of significant ice cap formation over polar landmasses-- particularly in the southern hemisphere. Alternating cool and warm periods during the ensuing Carboniferous Ice Age coincided with cycles of glacier expansion and retreat. Coastlines fluctuated, caused by a combination of both local basin subsidence and worldwide sea level changes. In West Virginia a complex system of meandering river deltas supported vast coal swamps that left repeating stratigraphic levels of peat bogs that later became coal, separated by layers of fluvial rocks like sandstone and shale when the deltas were building, and marine rocks like black shales and limestones when rising seas drowned coastlands. Accumulations of several thousand feet of these sediments over millions of years produced sufficient heat and pressure to transform the soft sediments into rock and the peat layers into the 100 or so coal seams which today comprise the Great Bituminous Coalfields of the Eastern U.S. and Western Europe.

Earth's climate and atmosphere have varied greatly over geologic time. Our planet has mostly been much hotter and more humid than we know it to be today, and with far more carbon dioxide (the greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere than exists today. The notable exception is 300,000,000 years ago during the late Carboniferous Period, which resembles our own climate and atmosphere like no other.

With this in mind the road to understanding global warming and our present climate begins with an historical journey through a chapter in Earth's history, some 30 million years before dinosaurs appeared, known as the Carboniferous Period-- a time when terrestrial Earth was ruled by giant plants and insects, and glaciers waxed and waned over a huge southern continent.

...

0 Replies

Loony leftist idea on how to save the world: drink rats milk.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312176,00.html

Only one problem for me, I don't know how to milk a rat, and right now I think, I hope, I have all the rats exterminated around here anyway.

Just a dumb question, I didn't read the details, but if this is recommended because cows give off methane, have the emissions of rats been studied? For example, if it takes 2,000 rats, or however many it would take, I didn't read it or study that either, maybe 2,000 rats might give off just as much methane and CO2 as one cow? Or I suppose not because rats don't eat grass, or do they? - but hey, what would be the environmental effects of raising enough rats to supply all the milk consumed around the world? I can't imagine how many studies would be required to ascertain what would happen with that? Think of the rise in rat-born illnesses, for one.

The intelligence of some people is absolutely amazing? New industry, rat dairies, ha ha ha ha.

0 Replies

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/03/04/mccartneysseal_wideweb__470x355,0.jpg

Hon, can I borrow your leg?

0 Replies

cjhsa, it does provide a little comic relief, doesn't it, but after some consideration, one has to worry about the mental health of some of these whackos?

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

YES, THE ALLEGATION THAT HUMANS ARE CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX!

0 Replies

It is cows instead. Drink rats milk, steve. And if you don't know how to milk one, you better learn. If you love the planet. If you don't, then forget it, its over.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know