|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#461
|
|||
|
|||
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 itīs surroundings. What it does is that it heats more slowly and it cools more slowly, hence itīs 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 |
#462
|
|||
|
|||
property rights Science out the window when it comes to political issues like
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. |
#463
|
|||
|
|||
Science out the window when it comes to political issues like "gun control" and Global Warming!
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." |
#464
|
|||
|
|||
Science out the window when it comes to political issues like "gun control" and Global Warming!
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? |
#465
|
|||
|
|||
Science out the window when it comes to political issues like "gun control" and Global Warming!
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." |
#466
|
|||
|
|||
Science out the window when it comes to political issues like "gun control" and Global Warming!
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 - |
#467
|
|||
|
|||
Science out the window when it comes to political issues like "gun control" and Global Warming!
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? |
#468
|
|||
|
|||
property rights Science out the window when it comes to political issues like
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 |
#469
|
|||
|
|||
property rights Science out the window when it comes to political issues like
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. |
#470
|
|||
|
|||
Science out the window when it comes to political issues like "gun control" and Global Warming!
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
...According to Nasa.."Consensus is Global Warming is Real" and "Detrimental" | Jonathan | Policy | 9 | December 22nd 06 07:19 AM |
...According to Nasa.."Consensus is Global Warming is Real" and "Detrimental" | Jonathan | History | 9 | December 22nd 06 07:19 AM |
"Science" Lightweight Addresses "Global Warming" (and Chinese Food) | Planetoid2001 | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | June 21st 06 10:33 PM |
"Science" Lightweight Addresses "Global Warming" (and Chinese Food) | Astronomie | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | June 21st 06 04:01 PM |
"Science" Lightweight Addresses "Global Warming" (and Chinese Food) | Phineas T Puddleduck | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | June 21st 06 03:23 PM |