Greenhouse effect

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by Paul Haese

I don't have a problem with reducing our polluting in general, but let's face it. If this was as huge a problem as they say it is going to be; solar, wind and hot rocks power would be a lot cheaper and coal fired power stations would be getting shut down in this country right now.

Funny you've mentioned that. Have a look here. Wind is well, ... a lot of wind It has been very cleverly marketed over the past 10 yrs though. It's all down to basic primary school maths though, like adding money . Like the 1L of E10 that takes 3L of crude oil to produce, or the very energy intensive and polluting process of manufacturing solar panels. That reminds me of the story of the bloke who keeps his fridge door open trying to cool down the room.

[Trixie (Carey)]

Those email irk me as well. I never get them but my in-laws often get sent them, along with the "Jewish people are taking over the world" ones.

They are so dangerous because a lot of people believe them without even bothering to check facts or even just using their common sense.

Yesterday I was shown the 0.04% one and it was so badly written I couldnt believe anyone would actually believe it, let alone forward it on.

Im fine with people chosing not to believe in climate change, just so long as they are well informed and not just believing these silly emails going around.

[TrevorW]

As an example of the ignorance of the general population, on the radio station the other day, they had an astrologer on a feedback phone call discussing how the full moon affects people. They went on about how well known he was.

I rang the station and said you need to get an "astronomer" or someone with scientific knowledge on the radio, the girl answering the switch for the station, said we've got an "astrologer" on now, I hung up in disgust.

[Paul Haese]

Originally Posted by Barrykgerdes

CO2 makes up only .04% of these gases

I actually thought it was about 0.03% per volume. I don't suppose that matters too much. Still pretty insignificant per volume and not a convincing percentage increase.

Originally Posted by multiweb

Funny you've mentioned that. Have a look here. Wind is well, ... a lot of wind It has been very cleverly marketed over the past 10 yrs though. It's all down to basic primary school maths though, like adding money . Like the 1L of E10 that takes 3L of crude oil to produce, or the very energy intensive and polluting process of manufacturing solar panels. That reminds me of the story of the bloke who keeps his fridge door open trying to cool down the room.

Yeah that sort of illustrates my point really. I have to say we have lots of them here. There are wind farms every where on the coast line and some a little further inland. I like the idea of them but the environmental damage they cause just to make them is well counter productive to the whole use of them. I actually thought California had more wind farms than anywhere else on the planet but I stand corrected.

One thing is for certain though, if climate change is being accelerated by us and the dire warnings are as bad as they say will occur; then we best get on with building nuclear plants because 3 accidents is going to be nothing compared to world wide devastation.

[Barrykgerdes]

Originally Posted by Paul Haese

I actually thought it was about 0.03% per volume. I don't suppose that matters too much. Still pretty insignificant per volume and not a convincing percentage increase.

.

Hi Paul

When I went to school it was stated as .03% (1952) by volume. There has been a 30% increse in the CO2 in the last 60 years making it closer to .04%. Still a very insignificant figure when all else is considered.

I personally subscribe to the theory that the rise in sea temperature of 1 degree has released an amount of CO2 which by some strange co-incedence is the exact quantity of CO2 that would be required to raise the amount in the air by 30%.

Barry

[Barrykgerdes]

This thread was originally in the science section but was objected too. Its topic is green house effect.

If we widen it to encompass climate change we will get more controversy. Of course the climate is changing as it has done through thousands of years. The biggest changes occured before humans took over the planet.

Are we responsible for it? probably about .04%. Can we do anything about it? Well we can't alter the change but we can learn to live with it. The one thing I know for certain is that taxing carbon dioxide to stop climate change shows about the same intelligence as building a wire fence to stop a flood.

There that should stir the pot some more.

Barry

[Kal (Andrew)]

One thing for certain is that the climate on this planet is not stable, and the fluctuations that have been experienced in the past extend way out beyond what we have experienced in the last few thousand years.

We are still technically in an ice age, is it our political destiny to try and lock that in?

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by Barrykgerdes

....
As for the so called green house being greatly inflenced by a gas that only constitutes .04% of its volume I have yet to see anyone actually provide proof that so little can do so much....

Barry

It can, and indeed does. Nobel prize winner Svante Arrhenius applied black body radiation theory and adapted the Stephan Boltzman law to CO2 and greenhouse.

The formula is ΔF = α ln(C/C0) and while not quite as famous as E=MC squared, after 100+ years of scrutiny is still very much accepted today.

[Barrykgerdes]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

It can, and indeed does. Nobel prize winner Svante Arrhenius applied black body radiation theory and adapted the Stephan Boltzman law to CO2 and greenhouse.

The formula is ΔF = α ln(C/C0) and while not quite as famous as E=MC squared, after 100+ years of scrutiny is still very much accepted today.

That's a theory. Not a proof.
Barry

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by Barrykgerdes

That's a theory. Not a proof.
Barry

OK, let me put it this way, the behaviour of the electrical circuits that power your house is well decribed by AC circuit theory.

"Theory" in main stream science does not equate to "unproven fantasy"
as to hold up it needs to be testable, repeatable and make predictions.

You could ignore the theory by grabbing the live and earth wires but I wouldn't recommend it.

[Barrykgerdes]

That's OK peter

This is the controversy that will end up having the thread closed
You have your opinion I have mine lets leave it at that.

Barry

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by Barrykgerdes

That's OK peter

This is the controversy that will end up having the thread closed
You have your opinion I have mine lets leave it at that.

Barry

So what parts of Stephan Boltzman's laws on thermodynamics do you think are false? My point being that having an opinion on climate change is one thing, and sure, can be debated due to the complex nature of the earth's climate. This was not however my original point.

Creating a fantasy about fundamental physics because it doesn't fit with a personal world view, (and I am not accusing you of this) I think is just plain weird.

A bit like someone ignoring gravitional theory and proving the point by jumping off a 80 floor building, as they go past the 20th floor they'd still argue "see...nothing bad has happened!"

[Barrykgerdes]

Sorry Peter

As I said before. I am not going to get invloved in the arguments about bogus emails and green houses.

Mine has more Cream and brown that green although it has a nice green roof (with solar panels)

Barry

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Forget the smoke screen initial post, I'll cut straight to the chase

Regardless of our "opinions" once people start to discredit organisations (often with great vitriol) like the UN, CSIRO, BOM, NASA and ultimately the IPCC, when the findings and reports from these bodies disagree with less rigorous sources that they have been missleadingly exposed to, I am afraid we are in some strife.

As far as I am concerned it is these very sorts of national and international bodies and the data they are producing and the reports they are releasing that governments need to and must listen too and subsequently act on in the best way they can, they have no choice and they need to ignore the elements in the public and government oppositions who would yell and spit vitriol for their own agenda because they have.

I shake my head

Mike

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

Forget the smoke screen initial post, I'll cut straight to the chase...

No smokescreen intended Mike. I still am miffed by those who should know better distorting or simply ignoring scientific fact because it doesn't suit their world view/agenda (Astrology would be another example)

As we've seen here "Oh...that's just a theory" is another typical response....making me wonder what part of electrocution or going splat don't they get.

Another gem you hear is a species (humans) can't possibly change the atmosphere of the earth...seems they are unaware plants beat us to it about 2.4 billion years ago

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

No smokescreen intended Mike.
Another gem you hear is a species (humans) can't possibly change the atmosphere of the earth...seems they are unaware plants beat us to it about 2.4 billion years ago

Wasn't having a go at you Peter (this time ).

The other doozy is "CO2 is not a harmful gas, heck! plants breath it"

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

The other doozy is "CO2 is not a harmful gas, heck! plants breath it"

Let's try to understand that. What they are saying is: "Because CO2 at 400ppm is non-toxic it also cannot be a problem in any other way." It's sort of like say: "Because water won't burn you, you also can't drown in it."

BTW Has anyone ever tried to breath pure CO2? I have and it hurts. You get a very sharp burning sensation in the nostrils, presumably from the CO2 combining with H2O to produce carbonic acid H2CO3.

[tlgerdes (Trevor)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

OK, let me put it this way, the behaviour of the electrical circuits that power your house is well decribed by AC circuit theory.

"Theory" in main stream science does not equate to "unproven fantasy"
as to hold up it needs to be testable, repeatable and make predictions.

You could ignore the theory by grabbing the live and earth wires but I wouldn't recommend it.

The difference here is that AC Circuit Theory is readily testable and the tests are repeatable with consistant outcomes when comparing to theory.

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Related to greenhouse, but somewhat off the original topic (sorry Peter but the thread has pretty much stopped anyway) I recieved the following flyer today. On one hand it shows that scientists don't just pull their hypothesies out of their ... ah ... ear, but also that we still need to learn alot.
___________________________________ ____________________

Dear colleagues,
Please consider submitting an abstract to the session 12 a "Links between CO2 and Climate: Carbon Cycle Feedbacks over Time" within the “Climate change” theme at the 2011 Goldschmidt Conference in Prague, Czech Republic (August 14-19, 2011).
Session description
The accumulation of anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is modified by processes of the global carbon cycle, that are in turn affected by the changing climate. The session will focus on variations in climate feedbacks associated with the carbon cycle in both past and present; from CO2 uptake by terrestrial vegetation and dissolution in the oceans at the short time scale, to continental weathering at the long time scale. The session will further discuss the use of paleo-CO2 to estimate climate sensitivity as a tool for predicting future climate.

[Barrykgerdes]

Whoever penned that obviously has been brought up in the public service where words are more important than intelligence.

Barry