Global Warming
Moderator: scott
re: Global Warming
On Tuesday they forecast that we MAY reach 100 degrees on Saturday. Since then it has been the leading news story every night. "It must be all the SUVs". We haven't had a 100 degree reading here since 1995! Funny, I remember back in the '70s we had an average of 15 per summer.
re: Global Warming
Well Saturday came and went and no 100 degrees. All week of news hype for nuttin. Guess their climate forecast software isn't good enough to forecast for 10 days out. Spose they're off a little beyond 10 days too?
-
ken_behrendt
- Addict
- Posts: 3487
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:45 am
- Location: new jersey, usa
- Contact:
re: Global Warming
terry...
I do agree with you that, now that the media has decided that the debate on the reality of Global Warming is over, there seems to be a preoccupation with news stories involving weather extremes. Well, maybe this is all for the good in the long run. IF Global Warming is "for real" (and I tend to lean toward believing that it is), then real change will not come until the average man in the street becomes aware of the problem and acknowledges its reality.
I wonder if anybody has ever considered if the Global Warming effect might not be "self-limiting". That is, if humanity does nothing to slow it, would a point be reached at which the build up of heat energy in the atmosphere would level off? Could human civilization survive at this stable state of atmospheric contamination with Greenhouse gases?
For example, if Global Warming got bad enough so that the higher northern and southern lattitudes only experienced fall or spring like temperatures during their respective winter months, then that would mean that the people living at those lattitudes would burn less fuel to heat their homes. That, in turn would reduce the amount of carbon emitted into our atmosphere.
On the other hand, if summers at these lattitudes became real "scorchers" with average temperatures in the, say, 120's °F, then people would stay inside of their insulated, air conditioned houses and do less driving that would then have emitted the carbon into the atmosphere. Of course, in this case they would be using electricity. But, if most of the world's electrical power was solar and nuclear, then that would not add to the carbon emitted.
Well, all I can add is that today, we in NJ are predicted to experience 90+ °F temperatures which, IIRC, seems about normal for this time of year at my northern lattitude.
ken
I do agree with you that, now that the media has decided that the debate on the reality of Global Warming is over, there seems to be a preoccupation with news stories involving weather extremes. Well, maybe this is all for the good in the long run. IF Global Warming is "for real" (and I tend to lean toward believing that it is), then real change will not come until the average man in the street becomes aware of the problem and acknowledges its reality.
I wonder if anybody has ever considered if the Global Warming effect might not be "self-limiting". That is, if humanity does nothing to slow it, would a point be reached at which the build up of heat energy in the atmosphere would level off? Could human civilization survive at this stable state of atmospheric contamination with Greenhouse gases?
For example, if Global Warming got bad enough so that the higher northern and southern lattitudes only experienced fall or spring like temperatures during their respective winter months, then that would mean that the people living at those lattitudes would burn less fuel to heat their homes. That, in turn would reduce the amount of carbon emitted into our atmosphere.
On the other hand, if summers at these lattitudes became real "scorchers" with average temperatures in the, say, 120's °F, then people would stay inside of their insulated, air conditioned houses and do less driving that would then have emitted the carbon into the atmosphere. Of course, in this case they would be using electricity. But, if most of the world's electrical power was solar and nuclear, then that would not add to the carbon emitted.
Well, all I can add is that today, we in NJ are predicted to experience 90+ °F temperatures which, IIRC, seems about normal for this time of year at my northern lattitude.
ken
On 7/6/06, I found, in any overbalanced gravity wheel with rotation rate, ω, axle to CG distance d, and CG dip angle φ, the average vertical velocity of its drive weights is downward and given by:
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
re: Global Warming
So then after we didn't get to 100 on Saturday, the 10:00 news forecast was for no rain insight for at least the next ten days and for sure we'll hit 100 tomorrow. It was raining at 3:00 AM - 5 hours after the forecast - rained on and off all morning, stayed overcast all day, and we got almost to 90.
If CO2 stops infrared light from going into space, doesn't it then have to also stop it from entering the atmosphere to begin with? And there is more coming than going. So IF CO2 can pull off this blocking effect (big IF), then surely were in for global cooling.
If CO2 stops infrared light from going into space, doesn't it then have to also stop it from entering the atmosphere to begin with? And there is more coming than going. So IF CO2 can pull off this blocking effect (big IF), then surely were in for global cooling.
-
ken_behrendt
- Addict
- Posts: 3487
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:45 am
- Location: new jersey, usa
- Contact:
re: Global Warming
terry wrote:
Apparently, the CO2 in our atmosphere is in a shifting state of thermal equilibrium which, due to the ever increasing amounts of CO2 being emitted from manmade activities, is slowly moving in the direction of a warmer atmosphere. Warmer air can hold greater amounts of water vapor than cooler air and this is a major reason that the extremes of Earth's weather seem to be getting worse.
However, despite all of this talk about Global Warming, I found it interesting that, so far this year, the US has not experienced a single major hurricane on its shores. Last year we got hit with Katrina and the year before that the state of Florida got hit with four in about six weeks! But, so far this year...nothing.
Maybe we're in the calm before the storm right now...
ken
Actually, the Greenhouse gas, C02, absorbs IR both radiated into it from the Earth surfaces and vegetation and incident upon it from the incoming electromagnetic radiation from the Sun. And, of course, the C02 also emits IR as it heats up and its molecules begin vibrating faster.If CO2 stops infrared light from going into space, doesn't it then have to also stop it from entering the atmosphere to begin with? And there is more coming than going. So IF CO2 can pull off this blocking effect (big IF), then surely were in for global cooling.
Apparently, the CO2 in our atmosphere is in a shifting state of thermal equilibrium which, due to the ever increasing amounts of CO2 being emitted from manmade activities, is slowly moving in the direction of a warmer atmosphere. Warmer air can hold greater amounts of water vapor than cooler air and this is a major reason that the extremes of Earth's weather seem to be getting worse.
However, despite all of this talk about Global Warming, I found it interesting that, so far this year, the US has not experienced a single major hurricane on its shores. Last year we got hit with Katrina and the year before that the state of Florida got hit with four in about six weeks! But, so far this year...nothing.
Maybe we're in the calm before the storm right now...
ken
On 7/6/06, I found, in any overbalanced gravity wheel with rotation rate, ω, axle to CG distance d, and CG dip angle φ, the average vertical velocity of its drive weights is downward and given by:
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
re: Global Warming
Absorbs or emits?
You can't have both.
The plain truth is it does neither.
There used to be a lot more atmospheric CO2 and the world survived.
Increased water in the atmosphere leads to decreased solar penetration and cooling - ie. balance
The planet's surface is 3/4 water covered and a little gas aint gonna change the temp.
Now on the other hand if we had just a little more O2 in the atmosphere, there would be lots of spontaneous combustion.
You can't have both.
The plain truth is it does neither.
There used to be a lot more atmospheric CO2 and the world survived.
Increased water in the atmosphere leads to decreased solar penetration and cooling - ie. balance
The planet's surface is 3/4 water covered and a little gas aint gonna change the temp.
Now on the other hand if we had just a little more O2 in the atmosphere, there would be lots of spontaneous combustion.
-
ken_behrendt
- Addict
- Posts: 3487
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:45 am
- Location: new jersey, usa
- Contact:
re: Global Warming
terry wrote:
Actually, CO2 can both absorb and emit IR radiation. Like any material, when heated, CO2 molecules increase their kinetic energies and that makes them move faster and impact each other with greater force. Those collisions cause their chemical bonds to begin vibrating and rotating about and, as the bonds then de-excite and drop to lower energy levels, the molecules will emit various frequencies of electromagnetic radiation...mostly in the IR region of the spectrum.
This process is completely reversible. The molecules can absorb selected frequencies of IR and then their bonds will increase their vibrational and rotational rates and can transfer this energy to other molecules so as to increase the average kinetic energy of all of the molecules.
Can an atomic or molecular system both absorb and emit radiation simultaneously? Hmmm...interesting question. Maybe that is what happens when a particular frequency of electromagnetic passes through a material which, for it, is transparent!
ken
Absorbs or emits?
You can't have both.
The plain truth is it does neither.
Actually, CO2 can both absorb and emit IR radiation. Like any material, when heated, CO2 molecules increase their kinetic energies and that makes them move faster and impact each other with greater force. Those collisions cause their chemical bonds to begin vibrating and rotating about and, as the bonds then de-excite and drop to lower energy levels, the molecules will emit various frequencies of electromagnetic radiation...mostly in the IR region of the spectrum.
This process is completely reversible. The molecules can absorb selected frequencies of IR and then their bonds will increase their vibrational and rotational rates and can transfer this energy to other molecules so as to increase the average kinetic energy of all of the molecules.
Can an atomic or molecular system both absorb and emit radiation simultaneously? Hmmm...interesting question. Maybe that is what happens when a particular frequency of electromagnetic passes through a material which, for it, is transparent!
ken
On 7/6/06, I found, in any overbalanced gravity wheel with rotation rate, ω, axle to CG distance d, and CG dip angle φ, the average vertical velocity of its drive weights is downward and given by:
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
re: Global Warming
You really confused yourself. It's as simple as pouring water into a bucket which is already full. You say the bucket absorbs what you're pouring, I say it doesn't.
If in=out then there is no retention.
A quick google check finds me "MARS -Atmospheric Composition: Carbon dioxide (95.32%), nitrogen (2.7%), argon (1.6%), oxygen (0.13%), carbon monoixde (0.07%)"
Should be a REALLY warm , temperature stable place???????
But the reality is huge temperature swings. SOME blanket !!!
Global warming HYPE is nothing more than a ploy for grant money which was delivered too well, to too many unknowing.
If in=out then there is no retention.
A quick google check finds me "MARS -Atmospheric Composition: Carbon dioxide (95.32%), nitrogen (2.7%), argon (1.6%), oxygen (0.13%), carbon monoixde (0.07%)"
Should be a REALLY warm , temperature stable place???????
But the reality is huge temperature swings. SOME blanket !!!
Global warming HYPE is nothing more than a ploy for grant money which was delivered too well, to too many unknowing.
-
ken_behrendt
- Addict
- Posts: 3487
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:45 am
- Location: new jersey, usa
- Contact:
re: Global Warming
terry...
The idea behind Global Warming is that the CO2 in the atmosphere acts to absorb IR released from the Earth's surface and any that comes into from the Sun.
The result of this is that the average temperature of all of the gases in the atmosphere is thereby increased. And, of course, the more CO2 human civilization puts into the atmosphere, the warmer it will become as this extra CO2 continues to absorb IR.
Yes, the CO2 molecules in any region of the atmosphere will also emit IR...but, most of that IR is then immediately reabsorbed by nearby CO2 so that thermal energy sort of gets trapped in the atmosphere and slowly accumulates over time. It's a very delicate, slow moving (thankfully!) process, but the evidence that it is really happens seems to be getting stronger with each passing year.
ken
The idea behind Global Warming is that the CO2 in the atmosphere acts to absorb IR released from the Earth's surface and any that comes into from the Sun.
The result of this is that the average temperature of all of the gases in the atmosphere is thereby increased. And, of course, the more CO2 human civilization puts into the atmosphere, the warmer it will become as this extra CO2 continues to absorb IR.
Yes, the CO2 molecules in any region of the atmosphere will also emit IR...but, most of that IR is then immediately reabsorbed by nearby CO2 so that thermal energy sort of gets trapped in the atmosphere and slowly accumulates over time. It's a very delicate, slow moving (thankfully!) process, but the evidence that it is really happens seems to be getting stronger with each passing year.
ken
On 7/6/06, I found, in any overbalanced gravity wheel with rotation rate, ω, axle to CG distance d, and CG dip angle φ, the average vertical velocity of its drive weights is downward and given by:
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
re: Global Warming
The 'evidence' you refer to is nonexistant.
You are inferring that only CO2 can be heated and not N, O2, etc.
Yes any gas can be heated.
A heated object (gas, liqid, or solid) radiates it's heat.
The hotter it is, the less readily it absorbs new heat. And the faster it radiates it's heat.
There is no such thing as a heat collector. You are saying a cloud of CO2 in deep space would just keep getting warmer over time from starlight. In fact, it will always lose more heat than it catches.
Now please explain 150 degress below zero Fahrenheit on Mars with 95% CO2
You are inferring that only CO2 can be heated and not N, O2, etc.
Yes any gas can be heated.
A heated object (gas, liqid, or solid) radiates it's heat.
The hotter it is, the less readily it absorbs new heat. And the faster it radiates it's heat.
There is no such thing as a heat collector. You are saying a cloud of CO2 in deep space would just keep getting warmer over time from starlight. In fact, it will always lose more heat than it catches.
Now please explain 150 degress below zero Fahrenheit on Mars with 95% CO2
re: Global Warming
Phytoplankton extract carbon from CO2. Salps eat phytoplankton, and unlike others in the food chain, effectively remove carbon from the cycle.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20060722/ ... balwarming
http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20060722/ ... balwarming
-
ken_behrendt
- Addict
- Posts: 3487
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:45 am
- Location: new jersey, usa
- Contact:
re: Global Warming
terry...
I am certainly not an expert on climatology or meterology by any stretch of the imagination. All I know is that there are a variety of computerized weather models in existence that indicate that, if we do nothing, the extra carbon human activities are emitting into the atmosphere will, by the end of this century, increase the average worldwide temperature of our atmosphere by anywhere from 3 ° to 10.7 °F depending upon which model one uses.
Those are big increases as far as the Earth's atmosphere is concerned.
So-called Greenhouse Gases such as water vapor, CO2, methane, nitric oxide, etc. only make up about 1% of the Earth's atmosphere, but they have a big effect on weather patterns and the average surface temperatures on Earth. In fact, it's even been suggested that life on Earth never could have evolved if it was not for the presence of these gases in the atmosphere! So, they are important for life on Earth. The problem is when humans developed the Industrial Age and began to dramatically add CO2 to the atmosphere. Studies of atmosphere trapped in Antartic ice for the last 600,000 years indicate that when CO2 levels rise, so does the average temperature of the air near Earth's surface.
Right now, the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere is the highest that has ever been measured and is continuing to increase. Sadly, the USA, which only has about 5% of the world's population, emits about 40% of the daily "load" of CO2 that is being added to the atmosphere by the world. We clearly need to begin to address this problem.
New Jersey's Senator Frank Lautenberg has sponsored a bill in Congress (S. 342) that would require the USA to begin to put some limits on the amount of CO2 we are currently dumping into the atmosphere. I think this is a good idea and I support the efforts to get this bill passed. Currently, it is in committee in the Senate and will come up for vote sometime during this session of Congress.
You wrote, with respect to Mars:
The first human explorers to Mars will have to virtually live in their spacesuits unless they can erect a shelter with superior insulation and heating to make it through those chilly Martian nights...
Hopeful...
There are many processes that remove carbon from the atmosphere, but, unfortunately, they are being overwhelmed by what humanity is adding each day. I think I read that each day humanity adds the amount of carbon to the atmosphere that it took slow growing plants years to accumulate. There's definitely a human induced imbalance going on here.
ken
I am certainly not an expert on climatology or meterology by any stretch of the imagination. All I know is that there are a variety of computerized weather models in existence that indicate that, if we do nothing, the extra carbon human activities are emitting into the atmosphere will, by the end of this century, increase the average worldwide temperature of our atmosphere by anywhere from 3 ° to 10.7 °F depending upon which model one uses.
Those are big increases as far as the Earth's atmosphere is concerned.
So-called Greenhouse Gases such as water vapor, CO2, methane, nitric oxide, etc. only make up about 1% of the Earth's atmosphere, but they have a big effect on weather patterns and the average surface temperatures on Earth. In fact, it's even been suggested that life on Earth never could have evolved if it was not for the presence of these gases in the atmosphere! So, they are important for life on Earth. The problem is when humans developed the Industrial Age and began to dramatically add CO2 to the atmosphere. Studies of atmosphere trapped in Antartic ice for the last 600,000 years indicate that when CO2 levels rise, so does the average temperature of the air near Earth's surface.
Right now, the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere is the highest that has ever been measured and is continuing to increase. Sadly, the USA, which only has about 5% of the world's population, emits about 40% of the daily "load" of CO2 that is being added to the atmosphere by the world. We clearly need to begin to address this problem.
New Jersey's Senator Frank Lautenberg has sponsored a bill in Congress (S. 342) that would require the USA to begin to put some limits on the amount of CO2 we are currently dumping into the atmosphere. I think this is a good idea and I support the efforts to get this bill passed. Currently, it is in committee in the Senate and will come up for vote sometime during this session of Congress.
You wrote, with respect to Mars:
Nightime surface temperatures on Mars can, indeed, take a real plunge and we see this effect to a degree in Earth's desert regions. Yes, the atmosphere there is about 95% CO2...but, one must remember that the atmosphere is very thin and the surface pressure is not even high enough to allow liquid water to exist! However, despite this, the daytime temperatures at the equator of the red planet can reach as high as about 70 °F.Now please explain 150 degress below zero Fahrenheit on Mars with 95% CO2
The first human explorers to Mars will have to virtually live in their spacesuits unless they can erect a shelter with superior insulation and heating to make it through those chilly Martian nights...
Hopeful...
There are many processes that remove carbon from the atmosphere, but, unfortunately, they are being overwhelmed by what humanity is adding each day. I think I read that each day humanity adds the amount of carbon to the atmosphere that it took slow growing plants years to accumulate. There's definitely a human induced imbalance going on here.
ken
On 7/6/06, I found, in any overbalanced gravity wheel with rotation rate, ω, axle to CG distance d, and CG dip angle φ, the average vertical velocity of its drive weights is downward and given by:
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
re: Global Warming
You just don't get it Ken
The models were made by humans to produce these forecasts.
CO2 cannot hold heat (and does not on Mars) more than any other atom/ molecule.
All molecules lose heat and only 'stay' warm by recieving as much as they lose.
Back to the bucket. Your molecule is a bucket. You can never fill it past the top and it has a leak to boot. CO2 holds no more heat than O2 or N per unit volume.
A law to restrict CO2 emissions is just plain dumb. "You're exhaling too much, in violation of section II....."
The models were made by humans to produce these forecasts.
CO2 cannot hold heat (and does not on Mars) more than any other atom/ molecule.
All molecules lose heat and only 'stay' warm by recieving as much as they lose.
Back to the bucket. Your molecule is a bucket. You can never fill it past the top and it has a leak to boot. CO2 holds no more heat than O2 or N per unit volume.
A law to restrict CO2 emissions is just plain dumb. "You're exhaling too much, in violation of section II....."
re: Global Warming
well it's good that you are here to point out the error of all the science work that's been done by all those scientific dolts that don't know what they are doing
i suppose every one can just forget about global worming and rest easy now
it's such a relief
thank you
i suppose every one can just forget about global worming and rest easy now
it's such a relief
thank you
the uneducated
if your gona be dumb you gota be tough
Who need drugs when you can have fatigue toxins and caffeine
if your gona be dumb you gota be tough
Who need drugs when you can have fatigue toxins and caffeine
re: Global Warming
Co2 maybe the cause of global warming, but dust (diesel)pollutants also help to keep the earth cool, basically blocking the sun.
Possibly the main reason why the temperature differs so much, is possibly the lack of water in the atmosphere on Mars. Most of the heat is trapped in by the water which give us the warmth we have here on earth. Co2 does not absorb heat within itself as such, if were to absorb the heat, it will be too small to make any real effect to global warming as we know today, rather it traps the warm air, stops the excessive heat from escaping into outerspace. I think of Co2 as a blanket, The thicker Co2 gets, the warmer the air will become. Let hope it doesn't turn into a duvet?
Possibly the main reason why the temperature differs so much, is possibly the lack of water in the atmosphere on Mars. Most of the heat is trapped in by the water which give us the warmth we have here on earth. Co2 does not absorb heat within itself as such, if were to absorb the heat, it will be too small to make any real effect to global warming as we know today, rather it traps the warm air, stops the excessive heat from escaping into outerspace. I think of Co2 as a blanket, The thicker Co2 gets, the warmer the air will become. Let hope it doesn't turn into a duvet?