Science out the window when it comes to political issues like "gun control" and Global Warming!

Whata Fool wrote:
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 05:58:29 GMT, Phil Hays wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:
That's assuming CO2 has a significant heating effect. Negative feedback
from the water cycle may swamp it out.

What negative feedback from the water cycle?

At the extremes, water is clearly positive feedback.

What a moron, there are only too positive aspects to water or
water vapor, clouds at night, and the ability to hold a hundred
times the thermal energy of CO2.

Hmm, water acts as a stablizer. You are right that water can contain
more thermal energy than air, basigly it takes more energy to heat one
liter of water. That does not mean it's necessarilly hotter than it´s
surroundings. What it does is that it heats more slowly and it cools
more slowly, hence it´s overall stabilizing effects. However the
picture is a bit complicated by the fact that ocean water does play
part in the carbon cycle.

At the moment it appears to be absorbing CO2, and thus slowing down
whatever temperature change is in progress. At some point that may
seaze, as the ocean waters near the surface achieve the maximum amount
of CO2 they can contain. A number of scientists have been saying that
the oceans are approaching that point when they will stop or slow down
theyr aborbtion of CO2, hence stop or slow down theyr stabilizing
effects on the carbon cycle.

Cheers, Einar

On Aug 9, 10:46 pm, Whata Fool wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:30:46 -0700, Einar wrote:
However, as it comes to global warming, I really think it is happening
and that we humans are turbocharging it.

Cheers, Einar

Think what you want, and tell the world, but even though it is
100 F at the moment, I don't see any evidence of a warming trend that
would seen to be sustained.


The last eight 5-year periods (2002-2006, 2001-2005, 2000-2004,
1999-2003, 1998-2002, 1997-2001, 1996-2000, 1995-1999), were the
warmest 5-year periods (i.e. pentads) in the last 112 years of
national records, illustrating the anomalous warmth of the last
decade. The 9th warmest pentad was in the 1930s (1930-34), when the
western U.S. was suffering from an extended drought coupled with
anomalous warmth. The three warmest years on record are 1998, 2006 and
1934. In 1998, the record warmth was concentrated in the Northeast as
compared with the Northwest during 1934. In 2006, much above average
temperatures were present across most of the U.S. The West Coast and
parts of the Ohio Valley and Southeast were above average. No state
was near or below average for 2006." -- NCDC

In regard to cities, there is no doubt that all the dry
buildings and enhanced drainage and pavement causes a lack of
evaporative cooling resulting in the Urban Heat Island effect, so in
that regard, there is warming.


And why do measurements in the atmosphere, at sea, and in rural areas
show warming too?

And there are long term climate trends in some locations that
change certain things, but until there is good science as the basis of
greenhouse theory, there will be people, especially scientists, that
won't sign on to AGW theory.

On Aug 10, 11:39 am, wrote:
On Aug 10, 9:52 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation





wrote:
On Aug 10, 9:40 am, wrote:

On Aug 10, 9:34 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation

wrote:
On Aug 10, 9:15 am, wrote:
But placing confidence that a given
unknown positive response from the earth's ecosystems will occur is
not prudent. Many claim that the climate models are not accurate
enough to cause action in our society to reduce emissions, but then
cite potential positive unknown feedbacks, disregarding the
possibility that there unknown unknowns.

My excuse for disregarding the unknown umknowns is that I didn't know
about them.

snip

Just incase you didn't bother to read, these are the sources;

Darn. I was hoping you were going to explain to us how you know about
the unknown unknowns.

Read for yourself, unkown feedbacks from biological pump are the
concern.

Oh, I get it. You guys want to rearrange the world economy based on
feedbacks that are unknown.

Do you have secret powers that allow you to know the unknown?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Wow, that's a paranoid leap, part of the reason the ocean is a co2
sink, is because of the natural occurring biological pump.

http://www.igbp.net/page.php?pid=101
"IGBP Science

IGBP studies the interactions between biological, chemical and
physical processes and human systems. IGBP collaborates with the three
international global environmental change programmes - WCRP, IHDP and
DIVERSITAS - to develop and impart the understanding necessary to
respond to global change.
The Earth as a System
Global change is often seen as a series of separate problems - climate
change, biodiversity loss, dwindling water resources - with separate
priorities and solutions. But the Earth behaves as a system, where
biological and physical processes interact to determine prevalent
global environmental conditions. Data from Antarctic ice cores reveal
the cyclic behaviour of the Earth System. Greenhouse gases and
inferred temperature show regular synchronised variations over
hundreds of thousands of years. Human civilization developed during
the Holocene (i.e. last 10 000 years) - a short and comparatively
stable period in geological time occasionally sliced by abrupt
climatic changes (e.g. average temperature oscillations of 10 degrees
in a decade).

Humans have become such a dominant environmental force, notably after
the industrial revolution, that a new geological era, the
Anthropocene, has been proposed to describe the last few hundred
years. Increased population growth together with accelerated human
activities and economic wealth over the past century have greatly
increased resource use, as reflected in agriculture, fisheries,
forestry, industry, transport, energy and urbanisation. This has
resulted in multiple and interacting global environmental impacts as
seen by the current values of greenhouse gases temperature. The Earth
System has clearly moved far outside the range experienced over the
last 700,000 years and is hence is operating in a "no-analogue" state.
"



http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmu...ge1/06_2.shtml
"The Biological Carbon Pump

Introduction
The ocean gets a disproportionate share of the carbon dioxide
available to the ocean-atmosphere system. The ratio is about 50
molecules of CO2 in the ocean for every one in the atmosphere. Why is
this so? The main reason is that carbon dioxide readily reacts with
water to make soluble species of ions, bicarbonate (formula: HCO3-),
rather than trying to fit between the water molecules as a gas.
Another reason is the physical pump described in the last section:
cold water holds more carbon dioxide in solution than warm water. This
cold, carbon dioxide-rich water is then pumped down by vertical mixing
to lower depths.

The last reason for the oceans big share of carbon is its "biological
pump." The biological pump, in essence, removes carbon dioxide from
the surface water of the ocean, changing it into living matter and
distributing it to the deeper water layers, where it is out of contact
with the atmosphere. Thus, when the ocean shares carbon dioxide with
the atmosphere, it does so by not only simply taking on carbon dioxide
into solution but also by incorporating the carbon dioxide into living
organisms."

On Aug 10, 11:55 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:
On Aug 10, 11:39 am, wrote:





On Aug 10, 9:52 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation

wrote:
On Aug 10, 9:40 am, wrote:

On Aug 10, 9:34 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation

wrote:
On Aug 10, 9:15 am, wrote:
But placing confidence that a given
unknown positive response from the earth's ecosystems will occur is
not prudent. Many claim that the climate models are not accurate
enough to cause action in our society to reduce emissions, but then
cite potential positive unknown feedbacks, disregarding the
possibility that there unknown unknowns.

My excuse for disregarding the unknown umknowns is that I didn't know
about them.

snip

Just incase you didn't bother to read, these are the sources;

Darn. I was hoping you were going to explain to us how you know about
the unknown unknowns.

Read for yourself, unkown feedbacks from biological pump are the
concern.

Oh, I get it. You guys want to rearrange the world economy based on
feedbacks that are unknown.

Do you have secret powers that allow you to know the unknown?

Wow, that's a paranoid leap, part of the reason the ocean is a co2
sink, is because of the natural occurring biological pump.

I can certainly understand why you don't want to tell us why and how
you are able to know the unknown. If I had such abilities I wouldn't
want anybody else to have them either. Do you also have X-ray vision?

On Aug 10, 12:24 pm, wrote:
On Aug 10, 11:55 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation





wrote:
On Aug 10, 11:39 am, wrote:

On Aug 10, 9:52 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation

wrote:
On Aug 10, 9:40 am, wrote:

On Aug 10, 9:34 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation

wrote:
On Aug 10, 9:15 am, wrote:
But placing confidence that a given
unknown positive response from the earth's ecosystems will occur is
not prudent. Many claim that the climate models are not accurate
enough to cause action in our society to reduce emissions, but then
cite potential positive unknown feedbacks, disregarding the
possibility that there unknown unknowns.

My excuse for disregarding the unknown umknowns is that I didn't know
about them.

snip

Just incase you didn't bother to read, these are the sources;

Darn. I was hoping you were going to explain to us how you know about
the unknown unknowns.

Read for yourself, unkown feedbacks from biological pump are the
concern.

Oh, I get it. You guys want to rearrange the world economy based on
feedbacks that are unknown.

Do you have secret powers that allow you to know the unknown?

Wow, that's a paranoid leap, part of the reason the ocean is a co2
sink, is because of the natural occurring biological pump.

I can certainly understand why you don't want to tell us why and how
you are able to know the unknown. If I had such abilities I wouldn't
want anybody else to have them either. Do you also have X-ray vision?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Please see previously posted sources in this thread to find your
answers, now how about the biological pump experiment?


http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmu...ge1/06_2.shtml
"The Biological Pump: a Thought Experiment
To appreciate how this works let us do a simple thought experiment. We
t with a well-mixed ocean, dark and quite cold throughout. We then
turn on the Sun and heat the ocean from above. A warm-water layer
develops on top of the ocean, and since it is "euphotic" (Greek for
"well-lit") green algae will now grow in this layer. That algae are
growing is just another way of saying that carbon dioxide is being
fixed into carbon compounds (that is, carbon dioxide is being removed
from solution in the water and incorporated into living things by
photosynthesis). Some of these particles of the algae (dead organic
stuff) sink out of the euphotic zone into the deeper cold waters.
Others are ?re-mineralized,? that is, they decay by the action of
bacteria, releasing carbon dioxide to the water in the process.

How long can this process of carbon fixation, carbon particle
settling, and carbon particle recycling continue in our experiment? It
can continue until all the nutrients that are necessary for
photosynthesis have been used up, and the surface water no longer
contains the nutrients necessary to support the growth of algae.

What about the recycling of nutrients (like phosphorous, sulfur, and
nitrogen) through decay of organic matter? Yes, the decay of the
organic particles not only recycles carbon, but also the nutrients
locked within. However, the amount that is being recycled is
diminished all the time, as the export of particles to deeper and
deeper layers continues. At some point in our thought experiment, the
recycling becomes negligible because all the nutrients have been
exported to the cold layers below and nothing can grow anymore. At
this point, if we draw a depth profile of the concentrations of
nutrients in the ocean waters, we should find practically nothing in
the warm layer, a maximum below the warm layer, where bacteria have re-
mineralized many of the particles received from above, and an
exponential decay with depth, as there is less and less left for the
bacteria to remineralize and as the settling organic matter becomes
selected for those types which are hard to oxidize. At the point of
the nutrient maximum, right below the upper warm layer, there would
also be an oxygen minimum. If we now add a slow upward movement of the
water, to simulate the process of deep circulation, we have a basic,
first-order model of the oxygen minimum in the oceans."

On Aug 10, 12:31 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:
On Aug 10, 12:24 pm, wrote:





On Aug 10, 11:55 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation

wrote:
On Aug 10, 11:39 am, wrote:

On Aug 10, 9:52 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation

wrote:
On Aug 10, 9:40 am, wrote:

On Aug 10, 9:34 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation

wrote:
On Aug 10, 9:15 am, wrote:
But placing confidence that a given
unknown positive response from the earth's ecosystems will occur is
not prudent. Many claim that the climate models are not accurate
enough to cause action in our society to reduce emissions, but then
cite potential positive unknown feedbacks, disregarding the
possibility that there unknown unknowns.

My excuse for disregarding the unknown umknowns is that I didn't know
about them.

snip

Just incase you didn't bother to read, these are the sources;

Darn. I was hoping you were going to explain to us how you know about
the unknown unknowns.

Read for yourself, unkown feedbacks from biological pump are the
concern.

Oh, I get it. You guys want to rearrange the world economy based on
feedbacks that are unknown.

Do you have secret powers that allow you to know the unknown?

Wow, that's a paranoid leap, part of the reason the ocean is a co2
sink, is because of the natural occurring biological pump.

I can certainly understand why you don't want to tell us why and how
you are able to know the unknown. If I had such abilities I wouldn't
want anybody else to have them either. Do you also have X-ray vision?

No response.

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Please see previously posted sources in this thread to find your
answers, now how about the biological pump experiment?

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmu...ge1/06_2.shtml
"The Biological Pump: a Thought Experiment
To appreciate how this works let us do a simple thought experiment. We
t with a well-mixed ocean, dark and quite cold throughout. We then
turn on the Sun and heat the ocean from above. A warm-water layer
develops on top of the ocean, and since it is "euphotic" (Greek for
"well-lit") green algae will now grow in this layer. That algae are
growing is just another way of saying that carbon dioxide is being
fixed into carbon compounds (that is, carbon dioxide is being removed
from solution in the water and incorporated into living things by
photosynthesis). Some of these particles of the algae (dead organic
stuff) sink out of the euphotic zone into the deeper cold waters.
Others are ?re-mineralized,? that is, they decay by the action of
bacteria, releasing carbon dioxide to the water in the process.

How long can this process of carbon fixation, carbon particle
settling, and carbon particle recycling continue in our experiment? It
can continue until all the nutrients that are necessary for
photosynthesis have been used up, and the surface water no longer
contains the nutrients necessary to support the growth of algae.

What about the recycling of nutrients (like phosphorous, sulfur, and
nitrogen) through decay of organic matter? Yes, the decay of the
organic particles not only recycles carbon, but also the nutrients
locked within. However, the amount that is being recycled is
diminished all the time, as the export of particles to deeper and
deeper layers continues. At some point in our thought experiment, the
recycling becomes negligible because all the nutrients have been
exported to the cold layers below and nothing can grow anymore. At
this point, if we draw a depth profile of the concentrations of
nutrients in the ocean waters, we should find practically nothing in
the warm layer, a maximum below the warm layer, where bacteria have re-
mineralized many of the particles received from above, and an
exponential decay with depth, as there is less and less left for the
bacteria to remineralize and as the settling organic matter becomes
selected for those types which are hard to oxidize. At the point of
the nutrient maximum, right below the upper warm layer, there would
also be an oxygen minimum. If we now add a slow upward movement of the
water, to simulate the process of deep circulation, we have a basic,
first-order model of the oxygen minimum in the oceans."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 05:58:29 GMT, Phil Hays wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:
That's assuming CO2 has a significant heating effect. Negative feedback
from the water cycle may swamp it out.

What negative feedback from the water cycle?

At the extremes, water is clearly positive feedback.

What a moron, there are only too positive aspects to water or
water vapor, clouds at night, and the ability to hold a hundred
times the thermal energy of CO2.

Freeze the planet,
and it would be covered by reflective ice,

Good luck doing that, what a silly argument.

and there would be little water
vapor to provide the majority of the greenhouse effect.

As long as there is an atmosphere, the planet can only cool
so much in the 8 to 16 hours of darkness.

Boil the planet,
and it would be shrouded by high cold clouds would radiate little heat to
space, and would admit almost enough to keep the surface hot. If the Sun
was roughly 3% to 5% hotter, such a "moist greenhouse" would be stable.

Anything to avoid reality and science facts.

Start with the cold case. If the planet was frozen, how could it ever melt
again?

Sublimation?

Whata Fool wrote:
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:51:30 -0700, Lloyd wrote:

And why do measurements in the atmosphere, at sea, and in rural areas
show warming too?

They don't, because they are not included in any data set.

Citation?

Cheers, Einar

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:51:30 -0700, Lloyd wrote:

And why do measurements in the atmosphere, at sea, and in rural areas
show warming too?

They don't, because they are not included in any data set.

It is more often than not 5 to 7 degrees warmer in the city
than it is at my house, especially at late night and early morning.
Not getting the radiation and evaporative cooling and the
lower low reading will skew the data set to the warm side, without
any warmer daytime readings.

But the UHI effect is greatest on sunny days, rain or even
clouds can cancel it out.

Whata Fool wrote:

Freeze the planet,
and it would be covered by reflective ice,

Good luck doing that, what a silly argument.

It happened.

http://www.eps.harvard.edu/people/fa...all_paper.html


--
Phil Hays