New idea for global warming

[soccerballtux]

Its because we are using energy, and a lot of times, that energy gets turned into heat. Be it the coal burning, cars running, or my computer generating heat, its all adding up and warming up the earth. Its not cooling off because the heat doesn't have anywhere to go. You've gotta have a trasmission medium to move heat. So it can't leave into outer space.

Silly idea?

 

[Leros]

relative to everything else, those heats dont add up to much

 

[gsellis]

The energy part is right, but the source is wrong. If we could stamp out the sun, no more global warming.

 

[Burkhead]

volcanos are the most contributing factor.

 

[Gibsons]

deja vu

 

[bisqeet]

really...
C02 was decided to be the major contributing factor of the global warming effect. i.e released c02 was keeping the released energy of the world in. hence the greenhouse effect.

the fact that global warming has not been proved; in fact they are lots of information against global warming.
the antartic has been melting for the last 6 thousand years, the temperature is now lower now, than when it was then.

the cap itself has increased in mass, ice reaching 5-6 miles deep

yes, data collected by GISS, CRU GHCN USHCN (world wide)show an increase of temperature of about 0.8C in the last 150 years, but how accurate is that data? how did one measure the temperature in 1880,

data gathered by nasa from the US during 1940-1970 actually show a decrease in temperature of about 0.2C..

confusing huh?

but then everyone has heard of global warming, so it must be true i guess...

 

[bisqeet]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
..Its not cooling off because the heat doesn't have anywhere to go. You've gotta have a trasmission medium to move heat. So it can't leave into outer space.

Silly idea?

so what your saying is the sun cant warm up the earth because theres no transmission medium? heat travels in 3 ways;
conduction, convection, radiation.
the sun radiates heat at the speed of light (all wavelengths travel at the speed of light in a vacuum)

if the balance between solar radiation and teresterial radiation (heat budget) is unbalanced, the earth becomes warmer/colder..


i think..

 

[networkman]

Yeah, right, and apparently our actions here on Earth are affecting "global warming" on an entirely different planet! :roll:

Space Research

 

[DrPizza]

For what it's worth, virtually all of the energy from gasoline is turned to heat in a car. heat in the engine. heat in the exhaust. And the pittance of energy which results in kinetic energy is transferred to heat as soon as you apply the brakes. Friction between the tires and road creates heat. Friction in every moving part of the car results in heat.

 

[chcarnage]

Originally posted by: bisqeet
really...
C02 was decided to be the major contributing factor of the global warming effect. i.e released c02 was keeping the released energy of the world in. hence the greenhouse effect.

the fact that global warming has not been proved; in fact they are lots of information against global warming.
the antartic has been melting for the last 6 thousand years, the temperature is now lower now, than when it was then.

the cap itself has increased in mass, ice reaching 5-6 miles deep

yes, data collected by GISS, CRU GHCN USHCN (world wide)show an increase of temperature of about 0.8C in the last 150 years, but how accurate is that data? how did one measure the temperature in 1880,

data gathered by nasa from the US during 1940-1970 actually show a decrease in temperature of about 0.2C..

confusing huh?

but then everyone has heard of global warming, so it must be true i guess...

Hi! Global Warming is a scientific fact and a backed up concept. CO2 plays an important role in earth's temperature bilance. Selfquote follows...

Originally posted by: chcarnage

Originally posted by: Noworkia
How does carbon dioxide trap heat? Does anyone have a link to a model or experiment showing the process on a small scale?

It doesn't "trap" heat in the form of preventing it from leaving the earth, it absorps solar radiation of a certain wavelength and gets warmer. According to this calculation based on quantum mechanics, CO2 currently is responsible for up to 12% of the greenhouse effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#Effects_of_various_gases

It's also known that the present CO2 concentration in the athmosphere increased 40% since the beginning of the industrialisation...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Atmosphere

...and that the concentration is higher than it was at every point in the last 400'000 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Variation_in_the_past

I recomend the topic Gibson linked... Everything is in there

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: chcarnage

Originally posted by: bisqeet
really...
C02 was decided to be the major contributing factor of the global warming effect. i.e released c02 was keeping the released energy of the world in. hence the greenhouse effect.

the fact that global warming has not been proved; in fact they are lots of information against global warming.
the antartic has been melting for the last 6 thousand years, the temperature is now lower now, than when it was then.

the cap itself has increased in mass, ice reaching 5-6 miles deep

yes, data collected by GISS, CRU GHCN USHCN (world wide)show an increase of temperature of about 0.8C in the last 150 years, but how accurate is that data? how did one measure the temperature in 1880,

data gathered by nasa from the US during 1940-1970 actually show a decrease in temperature of about 0.2C..

confusing huh?

but then everyone has heard of global warming, so it must be true i guess...

Hi! Global Warming is a scientific fact and a backed up concept. CO2 plays an important role in earth's temperature bilance. Selfquote follows...

Originally posted by: chcarnage

Originally posted by: Noworkia
How does carbon dioxide trap heat? Does anyone have a link to a model or experiment showing the process on a small scale?

It doesn't "trap" heat in the form of preventing it from leaving the earth, it absorps solar radiation of a certain wavelength and gets warmer. According to this calculation based on quantum mechanics, CO2 currently is responsible for up to 12% of the greenhouse effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#Effects_of_various_gases

It's also known that the present CO2 concentration in the athmosphere increased 40% since the beginning of the industrialisation...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Atmosphere

...and that the concentration is higher than it was at every point in the last 400'000 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Variation_in_the_past

I recomend the topic Gibson linked... Everything is in there

And you would be mistaken that it is a fact. The 'warming' is not documented by multiple methods and may be actually the urbanization (urban heat islands) of the measurement sites. Also, the models that "predict" global warming cannot accurately predict the past or the near future, so therefore cannot predict the more distant future. Also, if you accept that there might be warming, you cannot attribute it to human activity because of the current solar cycles.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: bisqeet
really...
C02 was decided to be the major contributing factor of the global warming effect. i.e released c02 was keeping the released energy of the world in. hence the greenhouse effect.

the fact that global warming has not been proved; in fact they are lots of information against global warming.
the antartic has been melting for the last 6 thousand years, the temperature is now lower now, than when it was then.

the cap itself has increased in mass, ice reaching 5-6 miles deep

yes, data collected by GISS, CRU GHCN USHCN (world wide)show an increase of temperature of about 0.8C in the last 150 years, but how accurate is that data? how did one measure the temperature in 1880,

data gathered by nasa from the US during 1940-1970 actually show a decrease in temperature of about 0.2C..

confusing huh?

but then everyone has heard of global warming, so it must be true i guess...

thats why the kyoto treaty is such a waste of time at the end of 50 years it would make a difference of .08 of a degree celcius not much of a trade off for the gains.

 

[bisqeet]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: bisqeet
really...
C02 was decided to be the major contributing factor of the global warming effect. i.e released c02 was keeping the released energy of the world in. hence the greenhouse effect.

the fact that global warming has not been proved; in fact they are lots of information against global warming.
the antartic has been melting for the last 6 thousand years, the temperature is now lower now, than when it was then.

the cap itself has increased in mass, ice reaching 5-6 miles deep

yes, data collected by GISS, CRU GHCN USHCN (world wide)show an increase of temperature of about 0.8C in the last 150 years, but how accurate is that data? how did one measure the temperature in 1880,

data gathered by nasa from the US during 1940-1970 actually show a decrease in temperature of about 0.2C..

confusing huh?

but then everyone has heard of global warming, so it must be true i guess...

thats why the kyoto treaty is such a waste of time at the end of 50 years it would make a difference of .08 of a degree celcius not much of a trade off for the gains.

i think the numbers for the kyoto protocoll was 0.04°C in 100 years..

 

[bisqeet]

Joughin, I. and Tulaczyk, S. 2002, "Positive mass balance of the Ross Ice Streams, West Antartica", Science 295:476-80:
Side looking radar measurementsshow West Antartic ice is increasing at 26.8 gigatons/year. Reversing the melting trend of the last 6,000 years.

http://www.realclimate.org./

The hypothesis that rising CO2 levels result in a direct increase in temperature originated in 1896 with Swedish chemist, Svante Arrhenius. However, the concept was abandoned in the 1940s because global temperatures had not even remotely matched the 1°C rise predicted by the theory. Since then, the rate of global warming has slowed despite the acceleration in industrialization and CO2 emissions.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh...l&sSheet=/news/2005/05/01/ixworld.html

http://www.innovationgame.com/general/globwarm.htm
The foundation for the global warming theory is at best tenuous. It depends on empirical calculations made more than four decades ago. The nature of climatic change has the characteristics of a fractal system. The evidence for global warming would be more conclusive if it were set against a background of a steady climatic state. Although global warming cannot be refuted, it is likely that the evidence has been presented in a manner likely to enhance the reputations of those who may benefit from its promulgation.

"We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing -- in terms of economic socialism and environmental policy." Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado)

"A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect." Richard Benedict, State Dept. employee working on assignment from the Conservation Foundation

 

[f95toli]

Hint: Read the paper in Science

 

[chcarnage]

Originally posted by: bisqeet
Joughin, I. and Tulaczyk, S. 2002, "Positive mass balance of the Ross Ice Streams, West Antartica", Science 295:476-80:
Side looking radar measurementsshow West Antartic ice is increasing at 26.8 gigatons/year. Reversing the melting trend of the last 6,000 years.

http://www.realclimate.org./

The hypothesis that rising CO2 levels result in a direct increase in temperature originated in 1896 with Swedish chemist, Svante Arrhenius. However, the concept was abandoned in the 1940s because global temperatures had not even remotely matched the 1°C rise predicted by the theory. Since then, the rate of global warming has slowed despite the acceleration in industrialization and CO2 emissions.

Good news for the West Antarctic. Well, in Switzerland every glacier loses volume. Climate change has regionally different faces but over all, the temperature is rising.

The fact that CO2 absorbs (converts into heat) sun radiation can be proven if you measure the sun radiation spectrum at earth's surface: Some wavelengths are absent, they don't get through the athmosphere because CO2 absorbs them. I stated and linked this in the other topic.

Svante Arrhenius did in fact discover the greenhouse effect, but the raise of athmospherical CO2 since the industrial age's beginning could only be proven in the 1960s.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh...l&sSheet=/news/2005/05/01/ixworld.html

http://www.innovationgame.com/general/globwarm.htm
The foundation for the global warming theory is at best tenuous. It depends on empirical calculations made more than four decades ago. The nature of climatic change has the characteristics of a fractal system. The evidence for global warming would be more conclusive if it were set against a background of a steady climatic state. Although global warming cannot be refuted, it is likely that the evidence has been presented in a manner likely to enhance the reputations of those who may benefit from its promulgation.

"We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing -- in terms of economic socialism and environmental policy." Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado)

"A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect." Richard Benedict, State Dept. employee working on assignment from the Conservation Foundation

I don't care much what a green-painted socialists says. Like it or not, the scientific consensus is that humanity influences the climate change. And the Daily Telegraph article is biased because it didn't ask Science Magazine for their opinion.

Originally posted by: gsellis
And you would be mistaken that it is a fact. The 'warming' is not documented by multiple methods and may be actually the urbanization (urban heat islands) of the measurement sites. Also, the models that "predict" global warming cannot accurately predict the past or the near future, so therefore cannot predict the more distant future. Also, if you accept that there might be warming, you cannot attribute it to human activity because of the current solar cycles.

The warming is well documented and can't be caused by false measures in heat islands.

The range of future scenarios is broad but they all include a temperature rise.

Any climate impact of the solar magnet field cycle on the other hand is pure speculation.

Originally posted by: daniel49
thats why the kyoto treaty is such a waste of time at the end of 50 years it would make a difference of .08 of a degree celcius not much of a trade off for the gains.

The kyoto treaty is expected to lower the raise in human CO2 production (7.6 bn tons instead of 8.0 in 2010).

However it is a waste of time to discuss the impact of Kyoto because for now it is the only game in town, no political alternatives are available (except doing nothing). There's no miracle cure and the fact that climate change is a long-term issue doesn't facilitate this issue either (Text)

Anyway please read the old topic about climate change, I don't feel like rewriting my entire opinion on this issue

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: chcarnage

The range of future scenarios is broad but they all include a temperature rise.

If a statistical model cannot predict the past or the near future, it is invalid. So, if it predicts a rise, it is false, no matter where the sample is.

As for temp rises, remote sensing says otherwise.

 

[chcarnage]

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: chcarnage

The range of future scenarios is broad but they all include a temperature rise.

If a statistical model cannot predict the past or the near future, it is invalid. So, if it predicts a rise, it is false, no matter where the sample is.

As for temp rises, remote sensing says otherwise.

The mechanics of the greenhouse effect are well understood and proven. The main problem is the quantification of the effect, where the exact amount of future CO2 production and the time delay until it affects the global temperature are the most uncertain variables.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: chcarnage

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: chcarnage

The range of future scenarios is broad but they all include a temperature rise.

If a statistical model cannot predict the past or the near future, it is invalid. So, if it predicts a rise, it is false, no matter where the sample is.

As for temp rises, remote sensing says otherwise.

The mechanics of the greenhouse effect are well understood and proven. The main problem is the quantification of the effect, where the exact amount of future CO2 production and the time delay until it affects the global temperature are the most uncertain variables.

Actually, there are many periods where CO2 was much higher and temps were lower.

JS notes on CO2

Planetary temp vs CO2 concentration

 

[chcarnage]

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: chcarnage

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: chcarnage

The range of future scenarios is broad but they all include a temperature rise.

If a statistical model cannot predict the past or the near future, it is invalid. So, if it predicts a rise, it is false, no matter where the sample is.

As for temp rises, remote sensing says otherwise.

The mechanics of the greenhouse effect are well understood and proven. The main problem is the quantification of the effect, where the exact amount of future CO2 production and the time delay until it affects the global temperature are the most uncertain variables.

Actually, there are many periods where CO2 was much higher and temps were lower.

JS notes on CO2

Planetary temp vs CO2 concentration

Well, I'm referring to our geological era, where such a thing as a 21% ogygen:78% nitrogen athmosphere actually exists and volcanic activities are somewhat constant. Our CO2 data gained from ice drilling dates back ca. 420'000 years and from then until recently, the CO2 concentration oscillated between 190 and 310 ppm. Now it's around 370 ppm. The IPCC estimates a concentration of 540-970 ppm for the year 2100. This is something new.

 

[bisqeet]

ahh. the magic word.....estimate..

isnt that another word for guess?

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: chcarnage
Well, I'm referring to our geological era, where such a thing as a 21% ogygen:78% nitrogen athmosphere actually exists and volcanic activities are somewhat constant. Our CO2 data gained from ice drilling dates back ca. 420'000 years and from then until recently, the CO2 concentration oscillated between 190 and 310 ppm. Now it's around 370 ppm. The IPCC estimates a concentration of 540-970 ppm for the year 2100. This is something new.

The IPCC is a political, not scientific body. See page 4 in the link. The rest of the doc refutes many of these points. You also cannot say that modern times are the only valid data point. That is fitting the facts to an artifically limited data set.

Science forum link and report

 

[Vee]

Joughin, I. and Tulaczyk, S. 2002, "Positive mass balance of the Ross Ice Streams, West Antartica", Science 295:476-80:
Side looking radar measurementsshow West Antartic ice is increasing at 26.8 gigatons/year. Reversing the melting trend of the last 6,000 years.

Right, let's just grab something and jank it right out of the big picture and then pretend it means something.

Is anybody here suggesting a growth of the Ross sea ice indicates that we do NOT have global warming? :disgust:

hint1: Where does the ice come from?
hint2: What does more ice flowing down faster from Antarctica and increased snowfall indicate?

For those of you innocent non-flat-earthers, non-creationists, perusing this thread, and being curious about these things, here's a nice, easily read article from a highly reputable source:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4565935.stm

Actually, there are many periods where CO2 was much higher and temps were lower.

Actually, you're self doing exactly what you accuse of. Introducing very unsure and extremely fragmentary, minute, unconnected information about a horrifically complex system, and suggesting some rather simplistic and farfetched conclusions (that we don't have to worry about CO2).

The fact that the Earth itself has 'survived' through many different geological periods and different climate systems, doesn't mean the transitions haven't been disastrous for many (even most) previous life forms.

The question of global warming and CO2 is a question of trying to understand the big picture, a very complex system, and fit pieces (like Katrina) of the jigsaw puzzle into it. It seems most scientists now agree that portions of the puzzle are complete enough, to represent cause for concern, and to suggest it's quite possible that the rest of the pieces are going to fit somewhere eventually.

My opinion of the matter is that we are approaching the point where SUV&oil&coal -lobbyists and their arguments can be dumped into the same sewage pit as creationists, flat-earthers and tobacco industries' medical "expertise".

Yes, we know so little. But it's simply not reasonable to suppose that such a change to the atmosphere is not going to affect the climate system. And a thing to take seriously, is that it's happening so fast.

The only reason not to take it seriously, is that the political agendas are so dominated by shortsighted issues, that we don't seem to be able to do anything about it anyway.

 

[chcarnage]

Originally posted by: bisqeet
ahh. the magic word.....estimate..

isnt that another word for guess?

It must be a beautiful life in a world with no insecurities...

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: chcarnage
Well, I'm referring to our geological era, where such a thing as a 21% ogygen:78% nitrogen athmosphere actually exists and volcanic activities are somewhat constant. Our CO2 data gained from ice drilling dates back ca. 420'000 years and from then until recently, the CO2 concentration oscillated between 190 and 310 ppm. Now it's around 370 ppm. The IPCC estimates a concentration of 540-970 ppm for the year 2100. This is something new.

The IPCC is a political, not scientific body. See page 4 in the link. The rest of the doc refutes many of these points. You also cannot say that modern times are the only valid data point. That is fitting the facts to an artifically limited data set.

Science forum link and report

All I see in this article is relativation of IPCC results without much own research (e.g. quantification of NATURAL influences). Looks like we have to agree to disagree on the credibility of our sources.

As long as some doubt the human footprint on climate change, measures like Kyoto are not justifiable, your source says. My counterargument naturally is that we should change the athmosphere as little as possible until the doubters are convinced. Reasonable, isn't it?

 

[SagaLore]

Well, you're on the right track. But all we're doing is changing potential energy to kinetic energy, which then ends up as heat energy. That energy would have eventually converted back to heat anyway, and be radiated back out to space as infrared.

I consider global warming to be a natural event - part of a cycle changing over hundreds of thousands of years. Now what we have to decide is A. should we slow it down B. or should we try and reverse it.

For all we know, any artificial influence we have to on global warming could be stopping the planet from heading into an ice age - I've read we're about due for one.