Make these ads go away.
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28

Thread: Some new articles about Global Warming

  1. #1
    Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    56
    Local Date
    03-24-2017
    Local Time
    09:52 AM
    Points
    4

    Some new articles about Global Warming

    A few quotes out of a few articles related to Global Warming:

    The Faithful Heretic:

    What is normal? Maybe continuous change is the only thing that qualifies. There’s been warming over the past 150 years and even though it’s less than one degree, Celsius, something had to cause it. The usual suspect is the “greenhouse effect,” various atmospheric gases trapping solar energy, preventing it being reflected back into space.

    We ask Bryson what could be making the key difference:

    Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?

    A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?

    Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor…

    A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.

    This begs questions about the widely publicized mathematical models researchers run through supercomputers to generate climate scenarios 50 or 100 years in the future. Bryson says the data fed into the computers overemphasizes carbon dioxide and accounts poorly for the effects of clouds—water vapor. Asked to evaluate the models’ long-range predictive ability, he answers with another question: “Do you believe a five-day forecast?”

    Bryson says he looks in the opposite direction, at past climate conditions, for clues to future climate behavior. Trying that approach in the weeks following our interview, Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News soon found six separate papers about Antarctic ice core studies, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1999 and 2006. The ice core data allowed researchers to examine multiple climate changes reaching back over the past 650,000 years. All six studies found atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations tracking closely with temperatures, but with CO2 lagging behind changes in temperature, rather than leading them. The time lag between temperatures moving up—or down—and carbon dioxide following ranged from a few hundred to a few thousand years.

    Impure as the Driven Snow:

    Belching from smokestacks, tailpipes and even forest fires, soot—or black carbon—can quickly sully any snow on which it happens to land. In the atmosphere, such aerosols can significantly cool the planet by scattering incoming radiation or helping form clouds that deflect incoming light. But on snow—even at concentrations below five parts per billion—such dark carbon triggers melting, and may be responsible for as much as 94 percent of Arctic warming.
    http://climatesci.org/2008/03/25/new...lobal-warming/:

    The report writes that

    “…. soot and other forms of black carbon could have as much as 60 percent of the current global warming effect of carbon dioxide, more than that of any greenhouse gas besides CO2″

    “In the paper, Ramanathan and Carmichael integrated observed data from satellites, aircraft and surface instruments about the warming effect of black carbon and found that its forcing, or warming effect in the atmosphere, is about 0.9 watts per meter squared. That compares to estimates of between 0.2 watts per meter squared and 0.4 watts per meter squared that were agreed upon as a consensus estimate in a report released last year by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a U.N.-sponsored agency that periodically synthesizes the body of climate change research. “

    and

    “Ramanathan and Carmichael said the conservative estimates are based on widely used computer model simulations that do not take into account the amplification of black carbon’s warming effect when mixed with other aerosols such as sulfates. The models also do not adequately represent the full range of altitudes at which the warming effect occurs. The most recent observations, in contrast, have found significant black carbon warming effects at altitudes in the range of 2 kilometers (6,500 feet), levels at which black carbon particles absorb not only sunlight but also solar energy reflected by clouds at lower altitudes.”
    Here is another interesting link:

    Guest Weblog On Albedo from Mike Smith:

    How many times have I stressed the soot being the cause of the northern ice melting? How many times have I pointed out adding more CO2 does almost nothing?

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    176
    Local Date
    03-24-2017
    Local Time
    12:52 PM
    Points
    0

    Re: Some new articles about Global Warming

    Lol, CO2 is plant food...... Fertilizer..... Plants absorb CO2, and as a result, give off oxygen.... CO2 is NOT a pollutant..... If it were, then why do commercial greenhouses and nureries pump presurised CO2 into they're greenhouses at 2-3 times the atmospheric levels to stimulate plant growth..... If CO2 were a pollutant, why would they do that...? Did you ever wonder why when you take a lush plant home from the nursery it dies back and never looks as good as it did at the nursery..??? You need more CO2....!!!!!! Do yo ever wonder why those greenhouses have that special smell to them..? It's just something you can't put your finger on..? It's CO2........

    CO2 doesn't cause global warming anyway to those who are of that religious belief.... CO2 is a result of biological activity that follows climate change due to solar and other factors within the earth that we have no part of.......

    They are trying to scam you, and reach into your pockets and take your money, and the best way to do that is to scare you into letting them do it, without a fight......


  3. #3
    Senior Member
    is reminiscing
     
    I am:
    Tired
     
    Bored_Wombat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Oceania
    Posts
    377
    Local Date
    03-25-2017
    Local Time
    04:52 AM
    Points
    124

    Re: Some new articles about Global Warming

    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra View Post
    And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor.
    This isn't even close to the figures that are being published by the scientific community.

    Removing water vapour alone would only reduce the greenhouse effect by about 36%. Removing everything except water vapour would leave about 66% of the greenhouse effect.

    The equivalent values for CO2 are about 9% and 26%. So CO2 is 25% or 60% as important as water vapour depending on how you treat the overlap with other gasses.

    (figures from here)

    The One one-thousandth figure you quote is interesting for its divergence from other figures, but, it does rather stretch one's credibility.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    is reminiscing
     
    I am:
    Tired
     
    Bored_Wombat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Oceania
    Posts
    377
    Local Date
    03-25-2017
    Local Time
    04:52 AM
    Points
    124

    Re: Some new articles about Global Warming

    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra View Post
    I notice from your link:
    “…. soot and other forms of black carbon could have as much as 60 percent of the current global warming effect of carbon dioxide, more than that of any greenhouse gas besides CO2″
    Which does rather contradict your claim above that water vapour is a more important greenhouse gas than CO2.

    But ice does have a very high albedo, so either melting it or covering it in soot will result in the earth retaining more heat than it otherwise would.

  5. #5
    Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    56
    Local Date
    03-24-2017
    Local Time
    09:52 AM
    Points
    4

    Re: Some new articles about Global Warming

    Quote Originally Posted by Bored_Wombat View Post
    This isn't even close to the figures that are being published by the scientific community.

    Removing water vapour alone would only reduce the greenhouse effect by about 36%. Removing everything except water vapour would leave about 66% of the greenhouse effect.

    The equivalent values for CO2 are about 9% and 26%. So CO2 is 25% or 60% as important as water vapour depending on how you treat the overlap with other gasses.

    (figures from here)

    The One one-thousandth figure you quote is interesting for its divergence from other figures, but, it does rather stretch one's credibility.
    Keep it in perspective. He was talking about in the first 30 feet.

    I am skeptical of these claims myself, but I haven't done the math. The way I absoption works, the claim could be accurate.

  6. #6
    Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    56
    Local Date
    03-24-2017
    Local Time
    09:52 AM
    Points
    4

    Re: Some new articles about Global Warming

    Quote Originally Posted by Bored_Wombat View Post
    I notice from your link:
    “…. soot and other forms of black carbon could have as much as 60 percent of the current global warming effect of carbon dioxide, more than that of any greenhouse gas besides CO2″
    Which does rather contradict your claim above that water vapour is a more important greenhouse gas than CO2.

    But ice does have a very high albedo, so either melting it or covering it in soot will result in the earth retaining more heat than it otherwise would.
    Wrong link, but...

    This was quoting another link. It didn't say it agreed or disagreed, or place complete percpective on it. Consider that there is agreement in the scientific community that soot is a problem.

    If it purely is 'global' numbers and speaking of ice, consider how significant that 60% is when it is only occuring on ice caps.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    is reminiscing
     
    I am:
    Tired
     
    Bored_Wombat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Oceania
    Posts
    377
    Local Date
    03-25-2017
    Local Time
    04:52 AM
    Points
    124

    Re: Some new articles about Global Warming

    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra View Post
    Keep it in perspective. He was talking about in the first 30 feet.

    I am skeptical of these claims myself, but I haven't done the math. The way I absoption works, the claim could be accurate.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Link
    Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor…
    That's wrong. Even choosing the most favourable definition of absorbed by water vapour, only 66% (or so) is absorbed in the entire atmosphere, much less the first 30 feet.

    There's a lot of errors about this subject in the blogosphere. This is why the very peer reviewed work of the IPCC is valuable, despite its conservatism due to governmental review.

    They only published last year, and the one of the things that is known to a very high confidence is that anthropogenic greenhouse emission, most significantly CO2 are responsible for most (likely all) of the measured global warming since the middle of last century.

    In fact that was fairly confident in the previous report of 2000, and suspected at the time of the formation of the IPCC in the late 80s.

    There are multiple lines of evidence for this.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    is reminiscing
     
    I am:
    Tired
     
    Bored_Wombat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Oceania
    Posts
    377
    Local Date
    03-25-2017
    Local Time
    04:52 AM
    Points
    124

    Re: Some new articles about Global Warming

    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra View Post
    If it purely is 'global' numbers and speaking of ice, consider how significant that 60% is when it is only occuring on ice caps.
    Sure, it's significant.

    Even this paper which is suggesting a higher significance that earlier body of work, and it might be partly right or wholly right, CO2 should not be dismissed such as
    How many times have I pointed out adding more CO2 does almost nothing?
    ... It is still the main cause.

  9. #9
    Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    56
    Local Date
    03-24-2017
    Local Time
    09:52 AM
    Points
    4

    Re: Some new articles about Global Warming

    Quote Originally Posted by Bored_Wombat View Post
    That's wrong. Even choosing the most favourable definition of absorbed by water vapour, only 66% (or so) is absorbed in the entire atmosphere, much less the first 30 feet.
    I agree with the 30 feet for CO2. I think that should be 30 miles. A seroius mistake. Now the CO2 at 30 ft might be right. Bryson just died the 11th. He may have been senile when he said it, confucing facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bored_Wombat View Post
    There's a lot of errors about this subject in the blogosphere. This is why the very peer reviewed work of the IPCC is valuable, despite its conservatism due to governmental review.
    They really have the wool pulled over your eyes. The IPCC is a political body of nations, many hostile to the USA. They can peer review anything with activism and punditry.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bored_Wombat View Post
    They only published last year, and the one of the things that is known to a very high confidence is that anthropogenic greenhouse emission, most significantly CO2 are responsible for most (likely all) of the measured global warming since the middle of last century.
    That cannot be true. If it was, why have we been cooling since 2004?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bored_Wombat View Post
    In fact that was fairly confident in the previous report of 2000, and suspected at the time of the formation of the IPCC in the late 80s.

    There are multiple lines of evidence for this.
    And 1000 years ago, the best minds in the world thought the world was flat. They were more than fairly confident. They were absolutely confident.

  10. #10
    Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    56
    Local Date
    03-24-2017
    Local Time
    09:52 AM
    Points
    4

    Re: Some new articles about Global Warming

    Register to remove this ad.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bored_Wombat View Post
    Sure, it's significant.

    Even this paper which is suggesting a higher significance that earlier body of work, and it might be partly right or wholly right, CO2 should not be dismissed such as ... It is still the main cause.
    You will change your mind as the years go by as the earth doesn't warm with the CO2 trends.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Global warming
    By buttercup in forum Current Political Events
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 11-10-2010, 02:55 AM
  2. that global warming you lot were on about
    By jimbo in forum General Chit Chat
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 01-14-2009, 07:59 AM
  3. global warming
    By lemon_and_mint in forum Earth Changes
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 07-28-2008, 12:34 AM
  4. Global warming?????????
    By Chookie in forum General Chit Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-24-2007, 11:31 AM
  5. is global warming a myth
    By Carl44 in forum Science
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 03-29-2007, 12:38 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.5.2