View Single Post
  #11  
Old April 7th 15, 08:08 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Sam Wormley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,966
Default What do conservative policy intellectuals think about climatechange?

On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 6:45:13 PM UTC+1, Sam Wormley wrote:

It is the cooling that is reduced by greenhouse gasses.
http://edu-observatory.org/olli/Climate/Week1.html

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the
atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's
temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the
possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might
explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the
century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human
industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists
dismissed his idea as faulty.

In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide
was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists
found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a
few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly
was possible.

In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphe it was rising fast. Researchers began
to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of
carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was
influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the
gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising
level could gravely affect our future. (This essay covers only
developments relating directly to carbon dioxide, with a separate
essay for Other Greenhouse Gases.

The History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Earth
http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html


On 4/7/15 12:59 PM, oriel36 wrote:

Every era has a chance to make its presence felt for future
generations and the recovery of astronomy falls on our generation at
this juncture where even the planet's daily temperature fluctuation
comes into play in the most fundamental way in response to a single
rotation each 24 hours.

You insist the proportion of rotations to an orbital cycle is 366 1/4
rotations to 1 and contrary to every known experience of a rotation
each 24 hours and extended on to February 29th which draws attention
to the parent observation which determines the fractional proportion
as 365 1/4 rotations to 1 orbital cycle.

I am a supporter of funding even though I don't require it myself but
for genuine researchers who see the big picture inherent in undoing
the damage created by the 'scientific method' . The Earth is not a
greenhouse and it warms and cools in two ways over the course of a
annual circuit corresponding to two separate surface rotations to the
central Sun. This is the foundation of planetary climate, period !.


Jerald, you are not mentally able to stay on subject.
Bye