OT: No rise of air born carbon Dioxide in Past 150 Years
Richard W.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm
Richard W.
"Richard W." <raw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:O_udncrcB4pJXqLW...@molalla.net...
> According to article in Science Daily.
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm
>
>
>
I suppose I should have included the article in the original post.
No Rise of Airborne Fraction of Carbon Dioxide in Past 150 Years, New
Research Finds
ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) - Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human
activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the
oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted
carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.
However, some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants
to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline and that the
airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is therefore
beginning to increase.
Many climate models also assume that the airborne fraction will increase.
Because understanding of the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide is
important for predicting future climate change, it is essential to have
accurate knowledge of whether that fraction is changing or will change as
emissions increase.
To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr
of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed
available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and
considers the uncertainties in the data.
In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction
of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or
during the most recent five decades.
The research is published in Geophysical Research Letters.
anorton
>
> "Richard W." <raw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:O_udncrcB4pJXqLW...@molalla.net...
>> According to article in Science Daily.
>>
>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm
>>
>>
>>
>
> I suppose I should have included the article in the original post.
>
> No Rise of Airborne Fraction of Carbon Dioxide in Past 150 Years, New
> Research Finds
> ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) - Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human
> activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the
> oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of
> emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.
(snip)
You along with many other ignorant bloggers and some either ignorant or
malicious news organizations have completely misrepresented the gist of this
research by omitting the critical word "fraction" from your title. When CO2
is released some stays in the atmosphere and some is absorbed by the ocean
and other sinks. All his research says is that the fraction that is absorbed
has stayed constant. In other words, this one analysis indicates that the
oceans have not YET lost their ability to absorb CO2 (albeit at the cost of
ocean acidification). It does NOT mean that the amount of total or
anthropogenic CO2 has remained the same in the air. It is increasing.
See the interview with the author of this paper who says reducing carbon
emissioins is still the only way to head off global warming.
http://jonesthenews.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/bristol-research-does-not-support-climate-change-denial/
dr_jeff
> "Richard W." <raw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:O_udncrcB4pJXqLW...@molalla.net...
>> According to article in Science Daily.
>>
>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm
>>
>>
>>
>
> I suppose I should have included the article in the original post.
>
> No Rise of Airborne Fraction of Carbon Dioxide in Past 150 Years, New
> Research Finds
> ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) - Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human
> activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the
> oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted
> carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.
That's almost 1/2 that remains in the atmosphere. And the part that goes
into the oceans is lowering the pH (or increasing the acidity of the
ocean). This is having negative effects on life in the ocean.
Jeff
Gunner Asch
wrote:
>According to article in Science Daily.
>
>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm
>
Oh oh....more Gorbal Warming just went into the terlet.
Gunner
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the
means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not
making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of
it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different
countries, that the more public provisions were made for the
poor the less they provided for themselves, and of course became
poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the
more they did for themselves, and became richer." -- Benjamin
Franklin, /The Encouragement of Idleness/, 1766
cavelamb
The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer
and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a
report to the U.S. Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen ,
Norway
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to
a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in
the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been
met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100
meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been
replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many
points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no
white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and
smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in
the old seal fishing grounds.
Oh, I'm sorry,
I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922
as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post.
William Wixon
"cavelamb" <cave...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:iJGdnQYXFeAvj93W...@earthlink.com...
i got a kick out of anorton's reply, lol.
i happened across this several days ago, i was surprised this idea goes all
the way back to 1932, i had been thinking "global warming" was something
concocted in the '70's.
http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2006/07/07/carbon-dioxide-causes-global-warming-1932/
July, 1932.
Carbon Dioxide Heats the Earth
DR. E. O. HULBURT, physicist of the naval research laboratory, Washington,
has found conclusive mathematical evidence that the earth's temperature is
being warmed by the increased amount of carbon dioxide present in the air.
Smoke stacks emit huge volumes of this gas, which is also found in the
breath and waste products of humans and animals.
Buerste
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm
>
>
>
That's OK, the Earth's magnetic poles will soon be switching causing all
kinds of disasters. It's caused by the use of Iron by humans. Unless we
tax all past, present and future use of Iron...we will all DIE...HORRIBLY!
Hachiroku ハチロク
>> No Rise of Airborne Fraction of Carbon Dioxide in Past 150 Years, New
>> Research Finds
>> ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) - Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by
>> human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead
>> absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about
>> 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.
>
> (snip)
>
> You along with many other ignorant bloggers and some either ignorant or
> malicious news organizations have completely misrepresented the gist of
> this research by omitting the critical word "fraction" from your title.
> When CO2 is released some stays in the atmosphere and some is absorbed by
> the ocean and other sinks. All his research says is that the fraction that
> is absorbed has stayed constant. In other words, this one analysis
> indicates that the oceans have not YET lost their ability to absorb CO2
> (albeit at the cost of ocean acidification). It does NOT mean that the
> amount of total or anthropogenic CO2 has remained the same in the air. It
> is increasing.
Oh, shoot. There you go citing science and not Al Gore.
The Nobel people are going to be very pissed with you. Politicians with
slide shows win over hard science every time.
dr_jeff
How do you figure?
According to the article, almost 1/2 the CO2 generated remains in the
atmosphere. And the rest is acidifying the oceans. Plus, the ability of
the oceans to absorb CO2 is limited.
Gee, how do you figure that "more Gorbal Warming just went into the terlet"?
cavelamb
You just rattled an old dormant brain cell last used in the early 70s, Tom.
We were studying the reversals of magnetic polarity in ice core samples.
The consensus at the time was that the magnetic pole itself didn't move,
it was, instead, a change of the axis of rotation.
A wobble - as in precession of a gyroscope.
That fell through to a new stable point.
Probably at something WAY over normal surface rotation velocity of the Earth
( eg: 1000 miles per hour).
Doncha just wonder...
--
Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/
"The clock of life is wound but once, and no man has the power
to tell just when the hands will stop, at late or early hour...
Now is the only time you own. Live, love, toil with a will.
Place no faith in time. For the clock may soon be still."
Buerste
I don't recall all the details from one or more of these "Discovery" type
programs but it seems the poles reverse every so often and a shift is
overdue. The magnetic field has decreased over 10% since they started
measuring it. The key is how to make money from it!
Buerste
"dr_jeff" <u...@msu.edu> wrote in message
news:oJ6dnW714pjkr93W...@giganews.com...
It didn't "just" go in the toilet. It went in the toilet when it was found
out that data was being changed and destroyed. Good science doesn't feel
the need to do so. Real scientists in every field feel ashamed of these
corrupt profiteers and credibility for AGW will never be restored.
Gunner Asch
Because its cooling off across the planet..and the CO2 is going back
into suspension in the oceans. Hardly acidifying them. And the holding
and carrying limit is far far far beyond what you think. After all where
did all that CO2 come from in the first place? Think humans created Co2
via their nasty soda pop machines and infernal combustion engines and so
forth?
Snicker....think again
Think that was the only Gorbal Warming Period we have had since recorded
history was first put into operation? So where did all that CO2 go
then, and then again, and then again and again and again?
Or have we been hit by many many CO2 comets and its increased the Co2
Levels?
Think hard before mucking around with your answer....<VBG>
Larry Jaques
<bue...@wowway.com> scrawled the following:
Well, it has recently been proven, scientifically, I might add, that
life is a sexually-transmitted, 100% fatal disease. So there!
F*ck the taxes!
Sarah for President, starting 12/22/2012!
--
Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness.
--Thomas Paine
Larry Jaques
<bue...@wowway.com> scrawled the following:
>I don't recall all the details from one or more of these "Discovery" type
>programs but it seems the poles reverse every so often and a shift is
>overdue. The magnetic field has decreased over 10% since they started
>measuring it. The key is how to make money from it!
Never fear. Algore will find^H^H^H^Hinvent a way!
Mike Hunter
comprise less than one tenth of one percent of our atmosphere, can effect
the average temperature of the earth either up or down.
"dr_jeff" <u...@msu.edu> wrote in message
news:OdudnVRvrKb5b6LW...@giganews.com...
dr_jeff
It is not going into suspension in the oceans. It is dissolving in the
oceans. There is a big difference, chemically. (I had a minor in
biochemistry in college as well as a major in biology research.)
> Hardly acidifying them.
<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091222105507.htm>
> And the holding
> and carrying limit is far far far beyond what you think. After all where
> did all that CO2 come from in the first place?
Mostly coal and oil.
> Think humans created Co2
> via their nasty soda pop machines and infernal combustion engines and so
> forth?
>
> Snicker....think again
>
> Think that was the only Gorbal Warming Period we have had since recorded
> history was first put into operation? So where did all that CO2 go
> then, and then again, and then again and again and again?
What was the other Gorbal Warming Period(s)?
> Or have we been hit by many many CO2 comets and its increased the Co2
> Levels?
How many CO2 comets do you think it would take to increase the CO2
concentration?
Mike Hunter
years. Is it remarkable, when the average temperature in Antarctica goes
up from minus 150 Degrees to minus 145 degrees?
"cavelamb" <cave...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:iJGdnQYXFeAvj93W...@earthlink.com...
Mike Hunter
comprise less than one tenth of one percent of our atmosphere, can effect
the average temperature of the earth either up or down.
"dr_jeff" <u...@msu.edu> wrote in message
news:oJ6dnW714pjkr93W...@giganews.com...
Mike Hunter
comprise less than one tenth of one percent of our atmosphere, can effect
the average temperature of the earth either up or down.
"dr_jeff" <u...@msu.edu> wrote in message
news:udmdnSPZnf4uS93W...@giganews.com...
Joseph Gwinn
"Buerste" <bue...@wowway.com> wrote:
Well, I have to chime in here. Just because the leaked emails showed
that the CRU folk were putting their thumbs on the scale does not prove
that everything they say is wrong. Although it sure weakens their case
for radical action now.
My take is that the CRU folk are true believers struggling with the
messiness of the actual scientific evidence. In the context of a
political debate, messy evidence is a problem, and so CRU tried to tidy
it up. Bad move.
In a year or two we will have a much better idea what's real and what's
not.
Joe Gwinn
cavelamb
>
> Well, I have to chime in here. Just because the leaked emails showed
> that the CRU folk were putting their thumbs on the scale does not prove
> that everything they say is wrong. Although it sure weakens their case
> for radical action now.
>
> My take is that the CRU folk are true believers struggling with the
> messiness of the actual scientific evidence. In the context of a
> political debate, messy evidence is a problem, and so CRU tried to tidy
> it up. Bad move.
>
> In a year or two we will have a much better idea what's real and what's
> not.
>
> Joe Gwinn
Actually, Joe, it does prove that everything they said was wrong.
This is the part that ordinary people have trouble with, I suppose.
But fudging data is lying.
It's not like in politics where lying is expected.
jk
>How do you figure?
>
>According to the article, almost 1/2 the CO2 generated remains in the
>atmosphere. And the rest is acidifying the oceans. Plus, the ability of
>the oceans to absorb CO2 is limited.
>
I don't think any one really knows HOW MUCH the ocean can absorb. Not
that it really needs to. It gets precipitated out as carbonates that
end up forming the limestone, chalk, marbles etc of the (far) future.
And I suspect that the more it gets dissolved in the water, the faster
those organisms grow.
jk
jk
>
> > And the holding
>> and carrying limit is far far far beyond what you think. After all where
>> did all that CO2 come from in the first place?
>
>Mostly coal and oil.
Uh, not hardly. The coal and oil are both just previous carbon sinks,
there were CO2 BEFORE they were coal and oil.
>
>
>> Or have we been hit by many many CO2 comets and its increased the Co2
>> Levels?
>
>How many CO2 comets do you think it would take to increase the CO2
>concentration?
>
Duh, one. (you didn't say by how much....:))
jk
Joseph Gwinn
cavelamb <cave...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Joseph Gwinn wrote:
> >
> > Well, I have to chime in here. Just because the leaked emails showed
> > that the CRU folk were putting their thumbs on the scale does not prove
> > that everything they say is wrong. Although it sure weakens their case
> > for radical action now.
> >
> > My take is that the CRU folk are true believers struggling with the
> > messiness of the actual scientific evidence. In the context of a
> > political debate, messy evidence is a problem, and so CRU tried to tidy
> > it up. Bad move.
> >
> > In a year or two we will have a much better idea what's real and what's
> > not.
> >
> > Joe Gwinn
>
>
>
> Actually, Joe, it does prove that everything they said was wrong.
We shall see.
> This is the part that ordinary people have trouble with, I suppose.
> But fudging data is lying.
Yes.
But it does not follow that if some lied, all lied.
Nor does if follow that everything the liars said is wrong, or that
everything the honest say is correct.
Honorable men can differ, and honorable men can also be mistaken.
> It's not like in politics where lying is expected.
As an artform.
Joe Gwinn
Gunner Asch
>>
>> Think that was the only Gorbal Warming Period we have had since recorded
>> history was first put into operation? So where did all that CO2 go
>> then, and then again, and then again and again and again?
>
>What was the other Gorbal Warming Period(s)?
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=119745
Enjoy
<G>
dr_jeff
Yawn
dr_jeff
> dr_jeff <u...@msu.edu> wrote:
>
>
>> How do you figure?
>>
>> According to the article, almost 1/2 the CO2 generated remains in the
>> atmosphere. And the rest is acidifying the oceans. Plus, the ability of
>> the oceans to absorb CO2 is limited.
>>
> I don't think any one really knows HOW MUCH the ocean can absorb. Not
> that it really needs to. It gets precipitated out as carbonates that
> end up forming the limestone, chalk, marbles etc of the (far) future.
Yet, there is a limited supply of calcium in the ocean, too.
> And I suspect that the more it gets dissolved in the water, the faster
> those organisms grow.
Wrong. Lower pH (more acidity) has been shown to be harmful to corals.
Jeff
> jk
Wes
>
>Well, I have to chime in here. Just because the leaked emails showed
>that the CRU folk were putting their thumbs on the scale does not prove
>that everything they say is wrong. Although it sure weakens their case
>for radical action now.
>
>My take is that the CRU folk are true believers struggling with the
>messiness of the actual scientific evidence. In the context of a
>political debate, messy evidence is a problem, and so CRU tried to tidy
>it up. Bad move.
>
>In a year or two we will have a much better idea what's real and what's
>not.
Their original data was destroyed iirc. That doesn't leave anyone a chance to examine if
the original data and whatever statistical evaluation they did to it is correct.
I'll admit I'm skeptical since AGW fits into too many agenda items for the
'enviromentalists'.
I'm a pretty simple guy, I only need to catch someone in one lie to consider them as
unreliable. A technique I've used over the years is to ask questions I know the answer
to in order to see if the person I'm dealing with will try to bs me.
Near 45N, a bit of warming isn't alarming to me btw.
Wes
axolotl
>> And I suspect that the more it gets dissolved in the water, the faster
>> those organisms grow.
>
> Wrong. Lower pH (more acidity) has been shown to be harmful to corals.
>
> <http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/07/29/in-a-more-acidic-ocean-coral-reef-skeletons-may-crumble/>
>
It depends.
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=282&cid=63809&ct=162
In any case, it has an effect.
Metalworking content: WHOI makes neat robots.
Kevin Gallimore
Gunner Asch
What..no enraged denials of the facts?
<VBG>
Seems you simply couldnt make your case..and had to respond in some
pathetic format.
But then...thats pretty much typical of the Gorbal Warming Useless
Idiots, isnt it?
jk
>jk wrote:
>> dr_jeff <u...@msu.edu> wrote:
>>
>Yet, there is a limited supply of calcium in the ocean, too.
>
There is a limited supply of EVERYTHING....
>> And I suspect that the more it gets dissolved in the water, the faster
>> those organisms grow.
>
>Wrong. Lower pH (more acidity) has been shown to be harmful to corals.
>
><http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/07/29/in-a-more-acidic-ocean-coral-reef-skeletons-may-crumble/>
That shows only one thing. THat is that part of the ocean doesn't
seem to support corals / reefs well. It doesn't automatically follow,
that their conclusion that it is the acidity to blame.
If in a study A changes and B changes, it does NOT follow that A is
"The" Cause of B, or that A is even "a" cause of B.
And corals are supposed to be the ONLY source of carbonate formation?
Not hardly.
And a few years ago, I seem to recall that the ozone hole, and
increased UV penetration was supposed to be the cause for coral
deaths.
jk
Buerste
"Joseph Gwinn" <joeg...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:joegwinn-802A48...@news.giganews.com...
I have a team of engineers and if left to their own devices they WILL
devolve into some unknown species obsessively driven by tangential minutia
of their own making. I imagine scientists are of similar character.
jbsl...@gmail.com
wrote:
>We are still waiting for the scientific evidence that proves CO2, a gas the
>comprise less than one tenth of one percent of our atmosphere, can effect
>the average temperature of the earth either up or down.
I just read a news release, quoted here in part, that states:
THE SUMMER of 2007 may be remembered as a turning point in the
fluorocarbon industry, for it was then that the members of the German
Association of Automotive Industry (VDA), spurred by a European Union
mandate, jointly decided to employ air conditioning systems using
carbon dioxide (CO2), rather than a fluorocarbon, as the refrigerant.
The URL is all across the page so I didn't include it but google on
Europe and new refrigerant will get you any number of hits.
Regards,
J.B.
jbsl...@gmail.com
wrote:
>Don't ya love it? Climate change has been happening for over 4 Billion
>years. Is it remarkable, when the average temperature in Antarctica goes
>up from minus 150 Degrees to minus 145 degrees?
>
>
And the Europeans are planning on using CO2 in auto air conditioners.
http://www.icis.com/Articles/2008/02/11/9096927/european-auto-chemical-industries-seek-next-generation-of-refrigerants-as-r-134a-is-phased-out-corre.html
Regards,
J.B.
Joseph Gwinn
Wes <clu...@lycos.com> wrote:
> Joseph Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Well, I have to chime in here. Just because the leaked emails showed
> >that the CRU folk were putting their thumbs on the scale does not prove
> >that everything they say is wrong. Although it sure weakens their case
> >for radical action now.
> >
> >My take is that the CRU folk are true believers struggling with the
> >messiness of the actual scientific evidence. In the context of a
> >political debate, messy evidence is a problem, and so CRU tried to tidy
> >it up. Bad move.
> >
> >In a year or two we will have a much better idea what's real and what's
> >not.
>
> Their original data was destroyed iirc. That doesn't leave anyone a chance to
> examine if the original data and whatever statistical evaluation they did
> to it is correct.
I've heard both that the data is lost, and that it is not lost, and have
no idea which is correct. But scientific data is lost to accident all
the time, and yet science progresses. New data will be developed to
replace questioned and now unverifiable data.
> I'll admit I'm skeptical since AGW fits into too many agenda items for the
> 'enviromentalists'.
>
> I'm a pretty simple guy, I only need to catch someone in one lie to consider
> them as unreliable. A technique I've used over the years is to ask questions
> I know the answer to in order to see if the person I'm dealing with will
> try to bs me.
Yes, we all do this, and it's an effective strategy. However, it does
not follow that everything a BSer says is wrong. In fact, the best con
men use an artful mixture of truth and falsehood.
> Near 45N, a bit of warming isn't alarming to me btw.
Well, Boston is at 42.36N, but it's proving heat to Canada and Europe
via the Gulf Stream. Of course Boston got that heat from the Caribbean
Sea.
Joe Gwinn
Larry Jaques
<bue...@wowway.com> scrawled the following:
>
See "EPA" and "CRU" for two extreme examples.
Larry Jaques
<joeg...@comcast.net> scrawled the following:
>In article <Ze90n.12366$N07....@en-nntp-05.dc1.easynews.com>,
> Wes <clu...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>> Joseph Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Well, I have to chime in here. Just because the leaked emails showed
>> >that the CRU folk were putting their thumbs on the scale does not prove
>> >that everything they say is wrong. Although it sure weakens their case
>> >for radical action now.
>> >
>> >My take is that the CRU folk are true believers struggling with the
>> >messiness of the actual scientific evidence. In the context of a
>> >political debate, messy evidence is a problem, and so CRU tried to tidy
>> >it up. Bad move.
>> >
>> >In a year or two we will have a much better idea what's real and what's
>> >not.
>>
>> Their original data was destroyed iirc. That doesn't leave anyone a chance to
>> examine if the original data and whatever statistical evaluation they did
>> to it is correct.
>
>I've heard both that the data is lost, and that it is not lost, and have
>no idea which is correct. But scientific data is lost to accident all
>the time, and yet science progresses. New data will be developed to
>replace questioned and now unverifiable data.
The CRU tossed their raw data plus their calculations, purportedly
when they moved to a different location, due to storage logistics. It
just doesn't happen that way in real life. I'm surprised that, after
his Hockey Stick stunt, Mann is even _employable_, let alone in the
same field in which he was caught performing outright -fraud-.
>> I'll admit I'm skeptical since AGW fits into too many agenda items for the
>> 'enviromentalists'.
No kidding.
Joseph Gwinn
I have read that too, and while such things do happen, my reaction was
the same as yours - it was awfully convenient that exactly that data was
lost, and none other.
> I'm surprised that, after
> his Hockey Stick stunt, Mann is even _employable_, let alone in the
> same field in which he was caught performing outright -fraud-.
If the Scientific Community comes to that conclusion, Mann's scientific
career will be over. But this will not happen quickly. Nor should it.
Innocent until proved guilty.
Joe Gwinn
Steve B
"Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2@lycos,com> wrote in message
news:4b40d4be$0$27230$ce5e...@news-radius.ptd.net...
> We are still waiting for the scientific evidence that proves CO2, a gas
> the
> comprise less than one tenth of one percent of our atmosphere, can effect
> the average temperature of the earth either up or down.
AlGore said it, and millions of people are behind him repeating it. What
more do you want? Oh, wait, you said "scientific evidence."
Never mind.
Steve
Mike Hunter
comprise less than one tenth of one percent of our atmosphere, can effect
the average temperature of the earth either up or down.
"dr_jeff" <u...@msu.edu> wrote in message
news:poednSK2TbP3hNzW...@giganews.com...
Mike Hunter
comprise less than one tenth of one percent of our atmosphere, can effect
the average temperature of the earth either up or down.
"dr_jeff" <u...@msu.edu> wrote in message
news:poednV22TbNlhNzW...@giganews.com...
Bruce L. Bergman
Which is all well and good - except that CO2 is not very efficient
as a refrigerant at air-conditioning temperatures. And you have to
build a 5,000 PSI capable compressor and cooling system that will live
20 years of average service. And then you have to figure out how to
lubricate the compressor.
They are working on other fluorocarbon based solutions that are in
today's operating range of under 500 PSI, and can use the mature
technologies we have now.
--<< Bruce >>--
Ed Huntress
"Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2@lycos,com> wrote in message
> We are still waiting for the scientific evidence that proves CO2, a gas
> the
> comprise less than one tenth of one percent of our atmosphere, can effect
> the average temperature of the earth either up or down.
Are you questioning the atmospheric greenhouse effect itself, or the
contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect? This is beside the question of
anthropogenic warming -- I'm just wondering if you're questioning the
base-level warming effects of CO2 or the total greenhouse effect.
If it's the effect itself, it's been known for well over 100 years -- it
adds around 33 deg. C to the temperature of the earth's surface. That's just
the physics of black bodies, and measurements of incident and emitted
radiation measurements. This was accepted physics long before the question
of warming came up.
As for the contribution of CO2 to the effect, it's a tricky thing to
measure, but the science usually puts it in the range of 10% - 20% of the
total effect.
The reason such small percentages of gases have such a large effect is a
matter of basic quantum mechanics. Certain gases -- water vapor, CO2,
methane, etc. -- emit photons when they're struck by photons of another
energy level. Statistically, the chances that a reflected or emitted photon
from the earth's surface will strike a CO2 molecule before it leaves the
earth's atmosphere is very high.
If you're just questioning the effects, someone surely could point you to
the explanations and the experimental evidence. Again, this is not about the
effects of anthropogenic warming, or any kind of warming. This part of the
science is just about the steady-state temperatures that result from the
atmospheric greenhouse effect.
--
Ed Huntress
Joseph Gwinn
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
> "Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2@lycos,com> wrote in message
> news:4b4224c1$0$6446$ce5e...@news-radius.ptd.net...
> > We are still waiting for the scientific evidence that proves CO2, a gas the
> > comprise less than one tenth of one percent of our atmosphere, can effect
> > the average temperature of the earth either up or down.
>
> Are you questioning the atmospheric greenhouse effect itself, or the
> contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect? This is beside the question of
> anthropogenic warming -- I'm just wondering if you're questioning the
> base-level warming effects of CO2 or the total greenhouse effect.
>
> If it's the effect itself, it's been known for well over 100 years -- it
> adds around 33 deg. C to the temperature of the earth's surface. That's just
> the physics of black bodies, and measurements of incident and emitted
> radiation measurements. This was accepted physics long before the question
> of warming came up.
>
> As for the contribution of CO2 to the effect, it's a tricky thing to
> measure, but the science usually puts it in the range of 10% - 20% of the
> total effect.
>
> The reason such small percentages of gases have such a large effect is a
> matter of basic quantum mechanics. Certain gases -- water vapor, CO2,
> methane, etc. -- emit photons when they're struck by photons of another
> energy level. Statistically, the chances that a reflected or emitted photon
> from the earth's surface will strike a CO2 molecule before it leaves the
> earth's atmosphere is very high.
Almost. It's actually a bit simpler than that. Light comes in from the
Sun (which is at ~6000 degrees Kelvin), passes through the atmosphere
more or less unhindered, and hits the Earth, where it is mostly
absorbed. (Some light is reflected back into space, but for simplicity
we will ignore that for now, as well as direct absorption of incoming
sunlight by the atmosphere.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greenhouse_Effect.svg>)
The Earth is heated by this absorbed sunlight, achieving an average
temperature of about +13C (286 K, call it 300 K), and so radiates energy
back into space. Or tries. The twist is that while the bulk of the
energy in sunlight is at wavelengths (loosely, colors) that pass freely
through the atmosphere, the radiation from the Earth is instead at far
longer wavelengths, well into the infrared band that is heavily absorbed
by the various greenhouse gases.
In other words, gases such as carbon dioxide are transparent to visible
light but not to infrared, so the solar energy goes in, but cannot get
back out. Fortunately, because without the greenhouse effect, the Earth
would be an iceball.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png>
> If you're just questioning the effects, someone surely could point you to
> the explanations and the experimental evidence. Again, this is not about the
> effects of anthropogenic warming, or any kind of warming. This part of the
> science is just about the steady-state temperatures that result from the
> atmospheric greenhouse effect.
Yes. The existence of the greenhouse effect is not in doubt. The
debate is only on the human role, if any, in changing the level of
greenhouse warming.
Joe Gwinn
Mike Hunter
not live on earth. The question that goes unanswered is HOW does CO2 have
ANY effect!
IF CO2 can effect the temperature of the earth and has been "known for well
over 100 years" as you say, than why does someone not show us the scientific
EVIDENCE that PROVES, a gas the comprise less than ONE TENTH OF ONE PERCENT
of our atmosphere, can effect the average temperature of the earth either up
or down?
Prove it to yourself, do a search. You will not find ANY repeatable
scientific evidence that proves CO2, a gas the comprise less than ONE TENTH
OF ONE PERCENT of our atmosphere, can effect the average temperature of the
earth either up or down.
In addition where if the PROOF that MAN can cause the CO2 to rise? There
is plenty of evidence in the historical record that PROVES the CO2 level
FOLLOWS the temperature up and down but no PROOF that CO2 EFFECTS the
average temperature.
The earths temperature has gone up and down dramatically since long before
man was on the earth. Why do the "man is the cause" of global warming
theorist neglect the recent "consensus" by the same types of people, that
mans pollution was causing the earth to COOL and if we did not do something,
like placing carbon black on glaciers to help them melt, or place a giant
mirror in space to increase the sun light over Siberia, as did the Russians,
we would cause another ice age in fifty to one hundred years?
The fact is there is no proof for that theory, only a consensus. If it were
true, why were the dinosaurs able to roamed the earth for million of years
while the CO2 level was much HIGHER than it is today, as shown in the
geological record?
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4b422b75$0$4975$607e...@cv.net...
Mike Hunter
for nearly five hundred years back in the sixteenth century. Perhaps we
should have burn more fossil fuels back then?
"Joseph Gwinn" <joeg...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:joegwinn-6F7267...@news.giganews.com...
Ed Huntress
"Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2@lycos,com> wrote in message
> Of course not, if it were not for the atmospheric greenhouse effect we
> could not live on earth. The question that goes unanswered is HOW does
> CO2 have ANY effect!
>
> IF CO2 can effect the temperature of the earth and has been "known for
No, that's not what I said. What I said was that the atmospheric greenhouse
effect has been known for well over 100 years. CO2 is a separate, and later,
issue.
>..., than why does someone not show us the scientific EVIDENCE that PROVES,
>a gas the comprise less than ONE TENTH OF ONE PERCENT of our atmosphere,
>can effect the average temperature of the earth either up or down?
Because it's not their job to educate you, or any of us. It's our job to go
find out.
CO2's effect is complicated to measure, from what little I understand of it,
for two reasons. First, it's involved in feedback loops with water vapor,
which (apparently) multiply its mass effect. Secondly, some gases, including
water vapor, are stratified in some places and at some times but not at
others. So it's a problem involving the mathematics of complexity, chaos
effects, and atmospheric fluid dynamics.
>
> Prove it to yourself, do a search. You will not find ANY repeatable
> scientific evidence that proves CO2, a gas the comprise less than ONE
> TENTH OF ONE PERCENT of our atmosphere, can effect the average temperature
> of the earth either up or down.
Tyndall measured the heat-trapping effect of CO2, relative to water vapor,
in 1859. Since then the work has become a little more precise, but it's
basically unchanged. <g>
Quantum measurements of its relative absorption and emission of radiation
were conducted decades ago, but the understanding of its absorption and
re-emission spectra relative to those of water vapor are more recent.
Suffice to say that CO2 absorbs radiation at frerquencies -- even at least
one complete band -- that are rejected by water vapor; thus, it adds to the
greenhouse effect contributed by water, and the ideas you'll see bandied
around by skeptics, that water vapor alone accomplishes "band saturation,"
have been pretty well shot down. So say the physicists -- beyond what is
said by the climatologists.
All of this is qualitative; I can't give you quantitative specifics, but
there are dozens, perhaps hundreds of professional papers on the subject.
I'm not qualified to judge any of it. If you have read it and you reject it
because you understand the science at that degree of detail, then I have to
defer to your deeper understanding.
>
> In addition where if the PROOF that MAN can cause the CO2 to rise? There
> is plenty of evidence in the historical record that PROVES the CO2 level
> FOLLOWS the temperature up and down but no PROOF that CO2 EFFECTS the
> average temperature.
I don't care. I'm not addressing anthropogenic warming. But to stick to the
question, which is it you're rejecting? The greenhouse effects of CO2, or
man-made contributions? If it's the former, what I can offer is what I said
above. If it's the latter, I'm in no way qualified to judge. Neither is
anyone else I know, including the PhD. meteorologist who lives down the
street from me and works for NOAA. He's frank about it.
Since your discussion below is about anthropogenic warming, the science for
which is 'way over my head, I'll skip over it.
--
Ed Huntress
Joseph Gwinn
"Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2@lycos,com> wrote:
> How do the global warming theorist account for the mini ice age that lasted
> for nearly five hundred years back in the sixteenth century. Perhaps we
> should have burn more fossil fuels back then?
Well, they don't, their models aren't good enough yet. Neither do they
explain the Little Ice Age. But this neither proves nor disproves the
greenhouse effect. See last paragraph below.
Joe Gwinn
Mike Hunter
below. In fact moisture has thousands of times as much effect as anything
else in the atmosphere. Moisture Is also many many times greater in the
atmosphere, than is CO2. CO2 is a minuscule part of the atmosphere,
precisely why it can not effect the temperature of the earth either up or
down.
If you do a search you will discover that fact. Do a search and lean the
actual percentages of the individual gasses in the atmosphere, would be a
good place to start. You will discover that two well know gasses comprise
over 90% of our atmosphere.
Actually I do not expect you to know the answers to the questions I ask,
about what I have discovered. I was simply trying to raise your awareness
of the subject, to get you do the types of searchers I have done and learned
the truth.
The fact remains there is NO scientific evidence that proves CO2, a gas that
comprise less than ONE TENTH OF ONE PERCENT of our atmosphere, can effect
the average temperature of the earth either up or down.
You are free to believe whatever you wish no mater how convolved you
reasoning may be. One would expect any thinking person would want to see
that scientific evidence, if there was any, and be suspect of those that
have convinced them that man can effect the temperature on earth, bye.
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4b424169$0$22529$607e...@cv.net...
Mike Hunter
could not live on earth, dummy
"Joseph Gwinn" <joeg...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:joegwinn-9B8432...@news.giganews.com...
dr_jeff
> We are still waiting for the scientific evidence that proves CO2, a gas the
> comprise less than one tenth of one percent of our atmosphere, can effect
> the average temperature of the earth either up or down.
From Harvard:
http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html
And this is from Columbia:
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/
In addition, you can learn more about the greenhouse gas effect on
wikipedia and read the articles and other source mentioned in the
references.
dr_jeff
> How do the global warming theorist account for the mini ice age that lasted
> for nearly five hundred years back in the sixteenth century.
How can an ice age last for 500 years in one century? A century is 100
years. That's a long ice age for one century.
Ed Huntress
"Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2@lycos,com> wrote in message
> Of course the amount of moisture in the air greatly effects the
> temperature below. In fact moisture has thousands of times as much effect
> as anything else in the atmosphere. Moisture Is also many many times
> greater in the atmosphere, than is CO2. CO2 is a minuscule part of the
> atmosphere, precisely why it can not effect the temperature of the earth
> either up or down.
>
> If you do a search you will discover that fact. Do a search and lean the
> actual percentages of the individual gasses in the atmosphere, would be a
> good place to start. You will discover that two well know gasses
> comprise over 90% of our atmosphere.
>
> Actually I do not expect you to know the answers to the questions I ask,
> about what I have discovered. I was simply trying to raise your awareness
> of the subject, to get you do the types of searchers I have done and
> learned the truth.
>
> The fact remains there is NO scientific evidence that proves CO2, a gas
> that comprise less than ONE TENTH OF ONE PERCENT of our atmosphere, can
> effect the average temperature of the earth either up or down.
Yeah. Ok. I just wanted to be sure you weren't questioning the principle of
the atmospheric greenhouse effect, which is as solid as any physical
science.
'
>
> You are free to believe whatever you wish no mater how convolved you
> reasoning may be. One would expect any thinking person would want to see
> that scientific evidence, if there was any, and be suspect of those that
> have convinced them that man can effect the temperature on earth, bye.
Ok, I'm glad I'm free. <g> I'll do just that, Mike.
--
Ed Huntress
Mike Hunter
appears that EVERYTHING one would want to know about HOW the atmosphere
protect the earth, thus making life possible on earth, can be found in that
the Harvard article, EXCEPT the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that proves CO2, a gas
effect the average temperature of the earth either up or down.
What it shows, is that the "man is the cause," theory is NOT one them. What
it does show is that the natural cycles of nature are what DOES effect the
average temperature on earth.
"dr_jeff" <u...@msu.edu> wrote in message
news:QKidnXEkqNEqFN_W...@giganews.com...
Mike Hunter
the average temperature of the earth either up or down.
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4b428afe$0$5015$607e...@cv.net...
Ed Huntress
"Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2@lycos,com> wrote in message
> The fact remains, we are still waiting for the scientific evidence that
> proves CO2, a gas the
> comprise less than one tenth of one percent of our atmosphere, can effect
> the average temperature of the earth either up or down.
The evidence is in the emission spectra of infrared from the earth's
atmosphere. The emission spectra of CO2 is well-known, and multiple studies
confirming the base-level spectra (and changes in it) of the atmosphere have
confirmed the effect of CO2. I mentioned in a previous message that it's
been calculated at 10% - 20% of the total greenhouse effect.
However, I have to take their word for it. I don't do quantum analysis of
the emissions from photo-excited gas molecules. I have to leave that to the
people who know what they're talking about.
So, if you *do* know what you're talking about, and you reject the numerous
studies (Herzberg 1953, Burch 1962, Burch 1970, etc) for some scientific
reason that you really understand, then I'll have to defer to your
expertise.
--
Ed Huntress
Mike Hunter
scientific EVIDENCE that PROVES CO2, a gas that comprises less than ONE
of the earth either up or down.
Until that scientific evidence emerges will can never know HOW CO2, a gas
the comprise less than one tenth of one percent of our atmosphere, can
effect the average temperature of the earth either up or down.
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4b4372f0$0$31261$607e...@cv.net...
Ed Huntress
"Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2@lycos,com> wrote in message
> That my be true but the fact remains, we are still waiting for the
> scientific EVIDENCE that PROVES CO2, a gas that comprises less than ONE
> TENTH OF ONE PERCENT of our atmosphere, can effect the average temperature
> of the earth either up or down.
>
> Until that scientific evidence emerges will can never know HOW CO2, a gas
> the comprise less than one tenth of one percent of our atmosphere, can
> effect the average temperature of the earth either up or down.
Uh, right. I won't ask you why you reject the papers below (all published
before this was a politicized subject, which is why I chose those early
studies.) My fear is that what we'll hear from you is that the Planck
function is all wrong, and then I'll really be lost. d8-)
Carry on. I occassionally stop in here to watch the Dance of the Sugarplum
Climatologists, and it's often interesting.
Larry Jaques
<joeg...@comcast.net> scrawled the following:
The data is replaceable. The logic that caused them to end up with the
final specs they did is irretrievable. THAT is the item that brings
my Bullshit meter into pegged condition.
>> I'm surprised that, after
>> his Hockey Stick stunt, Mann is even _employable_, let alone in the
>> same field in which he was caught performing outright -fraud-.
>
>If the Scientific Community comes to that conclusion, Mann's scientific
>career will be over. But this will not happen quickly. Nor should it.
>Innocent until proved guilty.
One HUMONGOUS lie wasn't enough? His hockey stick data wasn't a minor
error, it was a conscious alteration of data. And now here he is
again, screwing with data toward his original agenda. I have
absolutely no respect for the people who employ that jerk.
He should have been run out of town on a rail the first time, never
again to even THINK of science. When I'm king, he'll be impaled (Long
Live Vlad! http://www.mythinglinks.org/ImpaledBodies~teapa.gif) and
then cautioned about improper manipulation of science. ;)
Wes
>>And the Europeans are planning on using CO2 in auto air conditioners.
>>http://www.icis.com/Articles/2008/02/11/9096927/european-auto-chemical-industries-seek-next-generation-of-refrigerants-as-r-134a-is-phased-out-corre.html
>
>
> Which is all well and good - except that CO2 is not very efficient
>as a refrigerant at air-conditioning temperatures. And you have to
>build a 5,000 PSI capable compressor and cooling system that will live
>20 years of average service. And then you have to figure out how to
>lubricate the compressor.
>
> They are working on other fluorocarbon based solutions that are in
>today's operating range of under 500 PSI, and can use the mature
>technologies we have now.
So what is so wrong with propane and butane?
Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
dr_jeff
> That my be true but the fact remains, we are still waiting for the
> scientific EVIDENCE that PROVES CO2, a gas that comprises less than ONE
> TENTH OF ONE PERCENT of our atmosphere, can effect the average temperature
> of the earth either up or down.
>
> Until that scientific evidence emerges will can never know HOW CO2, a gas
> the comprise less than one tenth of one percent of our atmosphere, can
> effect the average temperature of the earth either up or down.
Links to the scientific evidence were posted many times, by myself and
others.
Please don't confuse your inability to understand science with a lack of
scientific evidence. It has been demonstrated that CO2 traps heat.
Jeff
Bruce L. Bergman
>Bruce L. Bergman <bruceNOSP...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>And the Europeans are planning on using CO2 in auto air conditioners.
>>>http://www.icis.com/Articles/2008/02/11/9096927/european-auto-chemical-industries-seek-next-generation-of-refrigerants-as-r-134a-is-phased-out-corre.html
>>
>>
>> Which is all well and good - except that CO2 is not very efficient
>>as a refrigerant at air-conditioning temperatures. And you have to
>>build a 5,000 PSI capable compressor and cooling system that will live
>>20 years of average service. And then you have to figure out how to
>>lubricate the compressor.
>>
>> They are working on other fluorocarbon based solutions that are in
>>today's operating range of under 500 PSI, and can use the mature
>>technologies we have now.
>
>So what is so wrong with propane and butane?
Flammable gases as refrigerant inside the passenger compartment are
NOT a good idea at all - Get in a wreck and you are trapped or
unconscious in the cabin, it springs a leak and lights off...
And a nice ignition source in the fan motor brushes and the speed
dropping resistor, among other things.
--<< Bruce >>--
larry moe 'n curly
> We are still waiting for the scientific evidence that proves CO2, a gas
> the comprise less than one tenth of one percent of our atmosphere, can effect
> the average temperature of the earth either up or down.
It's as ridiculous as saying a few ppm more or less of a certain type
of atom can significantly alter the characteristics of a metal alloy,
right?
larry moe 'n curly
jk wrote:
>
> dr_jeff <u...@msu.edu> wrote:
>
> > How do you figure?
> >
> > According to the article, almost 1/2 the CO2 generated remains in the
> > atmosphere. And the rest is acidifying the oceans. Plus, the ability of
> > the oceans to absorb CO2 is limited.
>
> I don't think any one really knows HOW MUCH the ocean can absorb. Not
> that it really needs to. It gets precipitated out as carbonates that
> end up forming the limestone, chalk, marbles etc of the (far) future.
>
> And I suspect that the more it gets dissolved in the water, the faster
> those organisms grow.
You need to know the rate of each effect. For example, when inland
lakes become too acidic from rain, they've been known to quit having
any higher marine animals living in them, and not all terrestial
plants grow faster in higher CO2 atmospheres.
jbsl...@gmail.com
>Bruce L. Bergman <bruceNOSP...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>And the Europeans are planning on using CO2 in auto air conditioners.
>>>http://www.icis.com/Articles/2008/02/11/9096927/european-auto-chemical-industries-seek-next-generation-of-refrigerants-as-r-134a-is-phased-out-corre.html
>>
>>
>> Which is all well and good - except that CO2 is not very efficient
>>as a refrigerant at air-conditioning temperatures. And you have to
>>build a 5,000 PSI capable compressor and cooling system that will live
>>20 years of average service. And then you have to figure out how to
>>lubricate the compressor.
>>
>> They are working on other fluorocarbon based solutions that are in
>>today's operating range of under 500 PSI, and can use the mature
>>technologies we have now.
>
>So what is so wrong with propane and butane?
>
>Wes
Either one will work as a refrigerant. In fact I installed a very
small gas recovery plant that was designed to use butane as the plant
had a de-butanizer column and we could make our own.
But what seems to me to be of more interest is the aerosol can of
upholstery cleaner I looked at today - genuine made in the U.S.A.
Propellant - carbon dioxide.... Or the news release I read on the Web
saying that the European Union was looking into using CO2 as
refrigerant in car air con systems in the not too distant future.
Regards,
J.B.
Mike Hunter
can effect the average temperature of the earth either up or down.
The fact is you can't, nobody can, because there is NO scientific EVIDENCE
that PROVES CO2, a gas that comprises less than ONE TENTH OF ONE PERCENT of
our atmosphere, can effect the average temperature of the earth either up or
down. Graphs and theories are not proof, merely conjecture.
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4b4385ea$0$4977$607e...@cv.net...
Mike Hunter
PLEASE post the EVIDENCE so other scientists can test that scientific
EVIDENCE. That's what real scientists do, they present their scientific
EVIDENCE to others who are then able to duplicate the scientific EVIDENCE.
"dr_jeff" <u...@msu.edu> wrote in message
news:0didnVp8l6Z-R97W...@giganews.com...
Mike Hunter
percent of our atmosphere, can effect
question, don't you think? LOL
"larry moe 'n curly" <larrymo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:b252f9c9-86c1-49cc...@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Mike Hunter
PROVES CO2,
a gas that comprises less than ONE TENTH OF ONE PERCENT of our atmosphere,
can effect the average temperature of the earth either up or down.
ALL lakes and rivers are acidic to some degree and it is not from rain, it
is a result of the nature of ground over which the water has flowed. Go to
any swamp and test the water, it is full of tannic acid. So much so is
some cases that the fish in the Georgia swamps and the Bayous of Louisiana
are black.
"larry moe 'n curly" <larrymo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:0d77b820-a9f5-45a6...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
dca...@krl.org
> You say that, but were is the EVIDENCE that PROVES CO2, a gas that comprises
> less than ONE TENTH OF ONE PERCENT of our atmosphere, can effect the average
> temperature of the earth either up or down?
>
> PLEASE post the EVIDENCE so other scientists can test that scientific
> EVIDENCE. That's what real scientists do, they present their scientific
> EVIDENCE to others who are then able to duplicate the scientific EVIDENCE.
>
and adsorbs infrared light. And therefore CO2 can affect the average
temperature of the earth.
This evidence is apparently not sufficient for you. But then I expect
you believe there is no evidence that gravity is responsible for the
moon rotating around the earth.
Dan
Ed Huntress
"Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2@lycos,com> wrote in message
> Come on Ed don't run away, show us the scientific EVIDENCE that PROVES
> CO2, a gas that comprises less than ONE TENTH OF ONE PERCENT of our
> atmosphere, can effect the average temperature of the earth either up or
> down.
I'm not here for that, Mike. I'm here to watch the people who think they
understand climatology make fools of themselves. I can't answer your
question -- as I said, the science is 'way over my head. But sometimes it's
entertaining to see what people cook up to delude themselves that they know
what they're talking about.
When you have scientific responses to the papers I listed previously, and
you can explain them to us mere mortals, I'll be listening with rapt
attention. If you don't know what those papers are, just from primary
authors' last names and years, you have quite a long way to go.
--
Ed Huntress
Joseph Gwinn
<60c5fe28-d1bd-4c73...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
"dca...@krl.org" <dca...@krl.org> wrote:
While Svante Arrhenius did not originate the idea of the greenhouse
effect, he wrote the fundamental paper. Most of Svante Arrhenius'
papers were in languages other than English, but his paper on the
greenhouse effect was important enough to be simultaneously published in
a major English-language scientific journal and a corresponding
German-language journal.
Here is the foundational paper:
� Svante Arrhenius, 1896a, Ueber den Einfluss des Atmosph�rischen
Kohlens�urengehalts auf die Temperatur der Erdoberfl�che, in the
Proceedings of the Royal Swedish Academy of Science, Stockholm 1896,
Volume 22, I N. 1, pages 1�101.
� Svante Arrhenius, 1896b, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the
Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, London, Edinburgh, and Dublin
Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science (fifth series), April
1896. vol 41, pages 237�275.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius> Contains these and
following references, largely in German. Ref 3 allows download of the
entire 40-page 1896 paper in English.
Arrhenius who was a very big name in his day, with a Nobel in Chemistry
and many other honors, died in 1927.
Joe Gwinn
dca...@krl.org
> Arrhenius who was a very big name in his day, with a Nobel in Chemistry
> and many other honors, died in 1927.
>
> Joe Gwinn
Still is a big name. The Arrhenius Equation is the basis for
reliability studies of parts. It is often over simplified and used as
a rule of thumb saying that chemical reactions double in speed with an
increase in temperature of 10 degrees C.
Dan
Joseph Gwinn
<46fd9064-c05f-4a0b...@o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
"dca...@krl.org" <dca...@krl.org> wrote:
Yep.
Joe Gwinn
Jeff
> Of course not, if it were not for the atmospheric greenhouse effect we could
> not live on earth. The question that goes unanswered is HOW does CO2 have
> ANY effect!
Incorrect. The way CO2 has an effect, by absorbing infrared light
coming from the earth and emitting that energy back towards the earth
is well known.
In ability to understand simple physics is not the same thing as the
science is not know. The science is well-known and backed by plenty of
evidence.
> IF CO2 can effect the temperature of the earth and has been "known for well
> over 100 years" as you say, than why does someone not show us the scientific
> EVIDENCE that PROVES, a gas the comprise less than ONE TENTH OF ONE PERCENT
> of our atmosphere, can effect the average temperature of the earth either up
> or down?
I have posted links to the evidence. Your inability to find the info
by yourself or follow the links doesn't mean anything other than that
you have not shown any ability to understand science or engineering.
> Prove it to yourself, do a search. You will not find ANY repeatable
> scientific evidence that proves CO2, a gas the comprise less than ONE TENTH
> OF ONE PERCENT of our atmosphere, can effect the average temperature of the
> earth either up or down.
Except that the evidence is well known.
Even the Dept. of Energy understands this:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=environment_about_ghg
> In addition where if the PROOF that MAN can cause the CO2 to rise?
Let's see: the CO2 concentration was nearly constant before the
industrial age and rose very fast beginning with the industrial age.
This is at the same time the population of the earth skyrocketed. In
addition, it possible and relatively easy to calculate how much CO2 is
made from burning coal, oil, etc.
> There
> is plenty of evidence in the historical record that PROVES the CO2 level
> FOLLOWS the temperature up and down but no PROOF that CO2 EFFECTS the
> average temperature.
Except that the evidence I talked about above and before.
> The earths temperature has gone up and down dramatically since long before
> man was on the earth. Why do the "man is the cause" of global warming
> theorist neglect the recent "consensus" by the same types of people, that
> mans pollution was causing the earth to COOL and if we did not do something,
> like placing carbon black on glaciers to help them melt, or place a giant
> mirror in space to increase the sun light over Siberia, as did the Russians,
> we would cause another ice age in fifty to one hundred years?
It's called science. And, the best evidence, which continues to grow
daily clearly supports that the greenhouse effect is real and that man
contributes to it.
> The fact is there is no proof for that theory, only a consensus. If it were
> true, why were the dinosaurs able to roamed the earth for million of years
> while the CO2 level was much HIGHER than it is today, as shown in the
> geological record?
The CO2 level did not kill the dinosaurs. Gee, get a clue.
Jeff
> "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>
> news:4b422b75$0$4975$607e...@cv.net...
>
>
>
> > "Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2@lycos,com> wrote in message
> >news:4b4224c1$0$6446$ce5e...@news-radius.ptd.net...
> >> We are still waiting for the scientific evidence that proves CO2, a gas
> >> the
> >> comprise less than one tenth of one percent of our atmosphere, can effect
> >> the average temperature of the earth either up or down.
>
> > Are you questioning the atmospheric greenhouse effect itself, or the
> > contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect? This is beside the question
> > of anthropogenic warming -- I'm just wondering if you're questioning the
> > base-level warming effects of CO2 or the total greenhouse effect.
>
> > If it's the effect itself, it's been known for well over 100 years -- it
> > adds around 33 deg. C to the temperature of the earth's surface. That's
> > just the physics of black bodies, and measurements of incident and emitted
> > radiation measurements. This was accepted physics long before the question
> > of warming came up.
>
> > As for the contribution of CO2 to the effect, it's a tricky thing to
> > measure, but the science usually puts it in the range of 10% - 20% of the
> > total effect.
>
> > The reason such small percentages of gases have such a large effect is a
> > matter of basic quantum mechanics. Certain gases -- water vapor, CO2,
> > methane, etc. -- emit photons when they're struck by photons of another
> > energy level. Statistically, the chances that a reflected or emitted
> > photon from the earth's surface will strike a CO2 molecule before it
> > leaves the earth's atmosphere is very high.
>
> > If you're just questioning the effects, someone surely could point you to
> > the explanations and the experimental evidence. Again, this is not about
> > the effects of anthropogenic warming, or any kind of warming. This part of
> > the science is just about the steady-state temperatures that result from
> > the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
>
> > --
> > Ed Huntress
>
> >> "dr_jeff" <u...@msu.edu> wrote in message
jbsl...@gmail.com
Doesn't the sun go around the earth also? Thought it was proven a
fact. Heresy to dispute it, just like this CO2 controversy.
Regards,
J.B.
Jeff
> Thank you dr_jeff for posting that article for all of us to peruse. It
> appears that EVERYTHING one would want to know about HOW the atmosphere
> protect the earth, thus making life possible on earth, can be found in that
> the Harvard article, EXCEPT the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that proves CO2, a gas
> the comprise less than one tenth of one percent of our atmosphere, can
> effect the average temperature of the earth either up or down.
>
> What it shows, is that the "man is the cause," theory is NOT one them. What
> it does show is that the natural cycles of nature are what DOES effect the
> average temperature on earth.
Your inabiltiy to understand science does not mean that the evidence
exists. It is well known and accepted by scientists who are much
smarter than you and I.
Michael A. Terrell
Joseph Gwinn wrote:
>
> In article <icKdneqbZPPFntzW...@earthlink.com>,
> cavelamb <cave...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Joseph Gwinn wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, I have to chime in here. Just because the leaked emails showed
> > > that the CRU folk were putting their thumbs on the scale does not prove
> > > that everything they say is wrong. Although it sure weakens their case
> > > for radical action now.
> > >
> > > My take is that the CRU folk are true believers struggling with the
> > > messiness of the actual scientific evidence. In the context of a
> > > political debate, messy evidence is a problem, and so CRU tried to tidy
> > > it up. Bad move.
> > >
> > > In a year or two we will have a much better idea what's real and what's
> > > not.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Actually, Joe, it does prove that everything they said was wrong.
>
> We shall see.
>
> > This is the part that ordinary people have trouble with, I suppose.
> > But fudging data is lying.
>
> Yes.
>
> But it does not follow that if some lied, all lied.
>
> Nor does if follow that everything the liars said is wrong, or that
> everything the honest say is correct.
>
> Honorable men can differ, and honorable men can also be mistaken.
Honorable men don't conspire to tell lies.
> > It's not like in politics where lying is expected.
>
> As an artform.
>
> Joe Gwinn
--
Greed is the root of all eBay.
Michael A. Terrell
dr_jeff wrote:
>
> Mike Hunter wrote:
> > That my be true but the fact remains, we are still waiting for the
> > scientific EVIDENCE that PROVES CO2, a gas that comprises less than ONE
> > TENTH OF ONE PERCENT of our atmosphere, can effect the average temperature
> > of the earth either up or down.
> >
> > Until that scientific evidence emerges will can never know HOW CO2, a gas
> > the comprise less than one tenth of one percent of our atmosphere, can
> > effect the average temperature of the earth either up or down.
>
> Links to the scientific evidence were posted many times, by myself and
> others.
>
> Please don't confuse your inability to understand science with a lack of
> scientific evidence. It has been demonstrated that CO2 traps heat.
>
> Jeff
Are you related to Dr. Demento?
jk
>How do the global warming theorist account for the mini ice age that lasted
>for nearly five hundred years back in the sixteenth century. Perhaps we
>should have burn more fossil fuels back then?
>
Interesting trick, packing 500 years in to one century
jk