Greenhouse effect

[KenGee (Kenith Gee)]

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.



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.

Can you please tell us all why you think.
human introduced Carbon Dioxide 110 ppm = no effect.
Ozone @ 0.7 ppm = big and very important effect.

Can you please explain why you anti-science people can down play carbons effects yet without a far less common gass we wouldn't be here?

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by tlgerdes

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

As is radiative forcing. Your point?

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by KenGee

Can you please tell us all why you think.
human introduced Carbon Dioxide 110 ppm = no effect.
Ozone @ 0.7 ppm = big and very important effect.

Can you please explain why you anti-science people can down play carbons effects yet without a far less common gass we wouldn't be here?

Ozone depletion was indeed a major problem.

Due their agressive depletion of Ozone CFC's were banned in the USA
(1978?) and subsequently globally elsewhere.

The peer reviewed measurments since (NASA, NOAA, CSIRO ...yep all the usual suspects ) indicate by 2050-ish Ozone levels should be back to pre-CFC levels.

[tlgerdes (Trevor)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

As is radiative forcing. Your point?

Sorry Peter, you made the original AC Theory analogy, what was your point of it!

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by tlgerdes

Sorry Peter, you made the original AC Theory analogy, what was your point of it!

AC theory is repatable, testable and predictive. So is (the lesser known) radiative forcing, Boyle's Law, Newton's Laws which were refined with Special and general relativity....(to name just a handful)

The scientific method quickly tosses out fantasy, hence I'm not sure where you want to go with this.

[marki]

This doesn't have anything to do with the carbon tax does it
http://videosift.com/video/Explosive...t-Forest-0-30s

[KenGee (Kenith Gee)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

Ozone depletion was indeed a major problem.

Due their agressive depletion of Ozone CFC's were banned in the USA
(1978?) and subsequently globally elsewhere.

The peer reviewed measurments since (NASA, NOAA, CSIRO ...yep all the usual suspects ) indicate by 2050-ish Ozone levels should be back to pre-CFC levels.

So why do you think people think a much more common gass has no effect. Or more importantly why are the people using the small percentage of CO2 gass in our atmosphere but fail to mention this very important gass? Would you say they are diliberatley not mentioning it, or are they just ignorant and parroting right wing shock jocks?

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by KenGee

So why do you think people think a much more common gass has no effect. Or more importantly why are the people using the small percentage of CO2 gass in our atmosphere but fail to mention this very important gass? Would you say they are diliberatley not mentioning it, or are they just ignorant and parroting right wing shock jocks?

So many questions!

My original point was to do with testable science, not opinoin polls.

I for one would not want a show of hands (in the cabin) of where to steer an airliner, or (in the waiting room) of where to make a surgical incision.

Some things are best left to experts.

On scientific principle, you make a hypothesis, then test it. If found false, toss it.

Shock jocks don't do that. Their sweeping statements that sound plausible
are often easily falseified...but that crucial bit often never makes it to air.

Greenhouse as such is a predictive, testable and measurable effect.

As to the notion of whether the industry of 7 billion humans are adding to the effect for about 2 centuries is a reasonable hypothesis, I'll leave it to you to decide.

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by KenGee

So why do you think people think a much more common gass has no effect. Or more importantly why are the people using the small percentage of CO2 gass in our atmosphere but fail to mention this very important gass? Would you say they are diliberatley not mentioning it, or are they just ignorant and parroting right wing shock jocks?

It is staggering isn't it ...I just can't understand the dogged and determined blinkered ignorance and from otherwise rather (seemingly) cluey people

[Barrykgerdes]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

So many questions!

I for one would not want a show of hands (in the cabin) of where to steer an airliner, or (in the waiting room) of where to make a surgical incision.

Hi Peter
This may be off topic but that is an interesting point and most professionals cannot stand being given advice by lay people.

I once had this view but now when a problem arises I like to get the opinions of all particularly the lay people who often put a totally different but often logical solution.

I once had an experience when working on some electrical equipment in the engine room of a ship. The deisel mechanic and his apprentice were trying to start a new engine for the first time. The poor apprentice pumped up the air start about a dozen times but the engine failed thto start. I am not a complete novice when it comes to IC engines and
I was close enough to see that the fuel pump was connected backwards. I could not tell the mechanic for the reasons you have stated so it took me nearly half an hour of general talk to get him to look at it and make the changes.

The point is no one is infalable and problems are often best solved by a team effort.

Barry

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by Barrykgerdes

Hi Peter
This may be off topic but that is an interesting point and most professionals cannot stand being given advice by lay people.

I once had this view but now when a problem arises I like to get the opinions of all particularly the lay people who often put a totally different but often logical solution.

I once had an experience when working on some electrical equipment in the engine room of a ship. The deisel mechanic and his apprentice were trying to start a new engine for the first time. The poor apprentice pumped up the air start about a dozen times but the engine failed thto start. I am not a complete novice when it comes to IC engines and
I was close enough to see that the fuel pump was connected backwards. I could not tell the mechanic for the reasons you have stated so it took me nearly half an hour of general talk to get him to look at it and make the changes.

The point is no one is infalable and problems are often best solved by a team effort.

Barry

Ah Barry if it was only that simple....

...would you blame the Captain for acting on his engineers advice?

Mike

[space oddity]

My big bugbear on all the climate debate is how certain pieces of information are totally ignored(very UN scientific) and the positives of global warming are never mentioned.
Fluctuations in solar radiation of just 1 % will alter the earth's climate. We are not at present able to measure this .At this stage, there is nothing we can do about this.
The climate doomsayers say Venus is an example of runaway greenhouse. hello, Venus has a particularly thick atmosphere and is much closer to the sun, hence considerably higher solar radiation input over billions of years.
What is the major greenhouse gas?............................... ..........yes, it is water vapour.CO2 is a very minor contributor.
Our planet has had much higher CO2 levels in the past, and no runaway greenhouse.In fact it was a very verdant place, the carboniferous era. Perhaps us humans are on this planet to recycle that carbon buried under the ground as coal to get the CO2 back for the plants.
Many plants use MOST of their water in the transpiration process to extract CO2 from the atmosphere. CO2 is a limiting factor in plant growth. This means higher yields in more arid conditions. Is the general public ever allowed to hear this?
Fossil records, ice core analysis etc show the planet goes through its ups and downs in temperature- before humans were on this planet. How arrogant are we as a species that think we have such control of the climate.More harm is done by our population spread induced habitat destruction than the CO2 release.Perhaps we need to cull the human species, perhaps by 90% to be CO2 neutral?
In the distant past, fossil history has shown many instances of climatic change. A species must adapt or become extinct. As a species, we must adapt or become extinct in a sea of our own foolishness.
The whole climate debate is stewing in its own rhetoric and almost religous fervor.

As for astronomy, more clouds = less photonic input.

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by space oddity

The whole climate debate is stewing in its own rhetoric and almost religous fervor.

...and that was a fine example of such rhetoric

[Barrykgerdes]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

Ah Barry if it was only that simple....

...would you blame the Captain for acting on his engineers advice?

Mike

Ah yes and the one person I will not take any advice on physical fitness from is Strongman Mike. I am sure he would be out to get me.

Barry

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by space oddity

The climate doomsayers say Venus is an example of runaway greenhouse. hello, Venus has a particularly thick atmosphere and is much closer to the sun, hence considerably higher solar radiation input over billions of years.

This is nonsense.

The temperature on the surface of Venus is hotter than that at Mercury, which has 4x more solar flux. Greenhouse is alive and well on Venus. To say otherwise is completely ignores well established fact.

[marki]

10,,,,,9,,,,,,8,,,,,7,,,,,6,,,,,,5, ,,,,4,,,,,,3,,,,,2,,,,,,,1,,,,,,

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

This is nonsense.

The temperature on the surface of Venus is hotter than that at Mercury, which has 4x more solar flux. Greenhouse is alive and well on Venus. To say otherwise is completely ignores well established fact.

Peter.

What makes it even more compelling is that the Venus has a much higher albedo than Earth. Eighty percent of the solar flux hitting Venus is reflected back into space.
Taking this into account the effective temperature on Venus using the Stefan_Boltzmann Law should be less than Earth's.

Regards

Steven

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by Barrykgerdes

Ah yes and the one person I will not take any advice on physical fitness from is Strongman Mike. I am sure he would be out to get me.

Barry

I would be gentle on you

You make a good point, think of me as the IPCC, CSIRO, NASA et al and you as a government - I (or the gym I ran) has and continues to diseminated all the available fitness research and data and give you advice based on it, which you take - pretty simple

Mike

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by space oddity

Fluctuations in solar radiation of just 1 % will alter the earth's climate. We are not at present able to measure this .

Another nonsense.

Solar flux has been measured for many decades, and the measured variation has been less than .001%

I'd suggest if you find a natural mechanism that correlates perfectly with the build up of CO2, other than human industry,
write it up, have it peer reviewed and if it passes muster, book your flight to Stockholm.

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

I don't profess to support this site, but I have tried looking all over the place for some graphical representations of global warming figures and this is the only place that seems to have those figures quite readily available.

http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Te...g_Proxies.html

The only advantage of this site is that it seems to have reputable references. I would still call this a pseudoscience place parts it may have a point in some instances especially when it does refer to government reported data.

Unfortunately it is a lot of reading, and I found that the reading is a very important and not just looking at the graphs.