Topic: Something that's being deliberately ignored!!

[Panzergranate]

Confused by the CO2 and Global Warming / Climate Change arguements??

I found this after digging around government sites that deal with Solar Science.

This is extremely damaging to the "CO2 is causing Climate Change" lobby. Well actually it shoots them down in flames!!

Often wondered why Sun Screens have been steadily increasing in strength over the past decade or so??

Here's the key extract from a report by the Solar Radiance Research Laboratories written in 2000 pointing out that the Sun is increasing its energy yield and show no sign of backing off:

Accounting for the seasonal variations in monthly mean daily totals of solar radiation, we can estimate the longer-term trends in irradiance for this 15-year analysis of SRRL data:

Direct Normal (Beam) = 4.7% increase
Global Horizontal (Total) = 2.1% increase

These trends must be considered with the estimated measurement uncertainties. I estimate a 1% to 2% measurement uncertainty for these measurements. I should also caution that extrapolating this data beyond the 15 years will not yield valid results. Significant variations from one decade to the next are common, and a sustained increase in solar irradiance such as that shown here would be climatically devastating.

The data so far have been the integrated, or broadband irradiance from the sun. The spectral distribution of solar irradiance is another factor for renewable energy applications.

The whole report can be found at www.nrel.gov

The fact is that THE SUN IS CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING and here are the figures, by a government facility, to prove it!!

Why is this being kept out of the public conciousness and why??

[Panzergranate]

The exact report is actually at www.nrel.gov/solar_radiation/pdfs/history.pdf

My mistake, as I put the homepage up by mistake.

[Lepton]

Number one:  This thread does not belong in the General Starfleet Command Forum.  It is more suited to Ten Forward or Engineering.

Number two:  One need only look at Venus to know the effects of a global increase in carbon dioxide and other green house gases.  The face of Venus is hot enough to melt lead.  That doesn't come from being close to the Sun.  It comes from the constituency of its atmosphere.  Where do you think atmospheric scientists got the idea in the first place?  From Venus.  There has been a global increase in the level of CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial age.  Ice core sample shows a clear association with global CO2 level and global temperatures.  The pH of the oceans is being altered by absorption of excessive level of atmospheric CO2.  And there just happens to the a planet just next door wherein the atmosphere is 96% CO2 and temperatures are 900 degrees F.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to make the connections.  Time to take off the tin foil hat and join the rest of us in reality.  There is no conspiracy and you have not been anally probed by aliens.

[Rod ONeal]

The outcome of the survey/study ALWAYS depends on who paid for it. Unfortunately, we don't know who to believe.

Even Al Gore's highly praised documentary on global warming was found in British courts to be factually wrong in many areas. A British court ruled that if it's shown in 2ndary schools as educational it has to be accompanied with explanations and disclaimers for the obvious politically motivated inaccurate content.

Now, I believe that we are killing our enviroment. Unchecked we will poison this planet. Those who are trying to prevent it though are killing their own cause by lieing and exaggerating. "When you try and plant evidence and get caught the guilty can end up getting away with murder."

I agree, this should be moved to 10 forward.

[Panzergranate]

It also focuses public attention away from Dioins, heavy metals, mercury, toxic waste and land fill seepage polution. Some of the companies claiming green credentials because they are CO2 friendly, are naughty poluters with some of the above.

Anyway, I still can't figure that if we try to reduce the 0.8% contribution that the human race makes to the planet's CO2 production, that we'll make any difference.

We survived the Medieval Global Warming period in total ignorance and that was +3 Degrees higher than the doomsday figure quoted by the "Experts".

If someone is trying to make you blindly believe something on face value and telling you to trust them, then you should ask yourself, "What would they gain out of me believing this tale??", and also, "What do I have to loose if it is a con??", and more importantly, "Why do they want me to belive this??".

It is always best to dig around for the truth yourself. Add up the numbers yourself. Check it out yourself.

If we were all more like this then used car salesmen, politicians and a whole lot of the "Believe what I say, you can trust me" brigade would have a tougher time.

Venus is a lot closer to the Sun than us.

Venus is having its atmosphere slowly stripped by the Solar Wind and leaves a vapour trail stretching out as far as the Earth's orbit. We even pass through it sometmes.

Venus has more CO2 in its atmosphere than the Earth. More than double in fact.

Most of the Carbon on Earth is tied up in life forms.

Mars has more CO2 in the atmosphere than the Earth but it is bloody cold there.

The fact still remains that the Sun is hotting up once again and scientists were aware of this years before the first CO2 Global Warming theories were sugested.

Now if they'd said, right  from the start, that the Sun is hotting up and maybe if we reduce the CO2 emissions we might be able to make a teensy weensy difference to the effect that it has on the future climate, then Joe Public would be more responsive.

It is the fact that they've ignored, surpressed and derided any mention of the Sun's activities or any scientists who points out the Sun's involvement in the Climate Crisis that is what has made Joe Public highly suspicious. Add in the sad fact that the fanatical "Hate the Automobile and Industry" Eco Nazis have seized on the Climate Crisis as a vehicle for their own ends, that has tainted the whole affair. The science was lost long ago in amongst dogma, political ambitions, reputations, agendas and social engineering plans.

Note when i refre to Eco Nazis I don't mean those honest souls who stand up and shout about toxic waste, deforestation, etc., I mean the loonies who believe that we can all go back to living a pastoral existance living off the land, dying at 40 and being at the mercy of mother nature.

Somewhere in there is the truth but the neither the Governments, Oil Barons, Industrialists, Fanatical Eco Nazis or CO2 Theorists want anybody to start digging for it. They're all frightened that it might not be what they want to hear.

The thing is that the whole Climate Crisis thing has turned into a massive Gravy Train funded by taxpayers worldwide. I don't think that the "Experts" want to give up all those lucrative lecture and seminar invites quite yet.

Oh yes, there's money being made by and paid to both camps to promote both sides of the arguement.

Maybe I should have posted this in Ten Forward.

What I'm saying is for everyone to ask awkward questons and not just accept the dogma, mantra and propoganda churned out by all parties involved.

[Fedman NCC-3758]

The fact is that THE SUN IS CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING and here are the figures, by a government facility, to prove it!!

Why is this being kept out of the public conciousness and why??

Why indeed.

Me thinks this thread belongs in H&S.

Where it will receive its due attention.

Nice one Panzer.

[Panzergranate]

Er.... don't forget that Islam started out as a spin off of Christianity.

A son of a rich merchant had heard the teachings of Jesus and understood that if God has blessed one with wealth and success, one should remember those not so lucky and be charitable towards them.

As for the sending sons into battle....

The New Testament states that, "God holds it against no man who talks up the sword to smite the wicked!!"

The problem, for all religions, is when those with their own political ends in mind, hijack and twist it so that they can achieve power.

Notice that those preaching hatred, just like the politicians and generals in WW1, stay well away from the actual killing and danger, conning others to die for "The Great Cause".

Islam is only now going through what the Catholics did for centuries in Europe. Why do you think that the freedom to practice whatever religious beliefs they wanted to follow without fear of persecution, is core to the US Bill of Rights??

Religion should stay well clear of politics.

[Bonk]

The fact is that THE SUN IS CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING and here are the figures, by a government facility, to prove it!!

Why is this being kept out of the public conciousness and why??

Why indeed.

Me thinks this thread belongs in H&S.

Where it will receive its due attention.

Nice one Panzer.

No, it should remain here where it can be discussed without the bias present in H&S orations. H&S is not well suited to rational and scientific discussions. If a debate cannot be conducted in public then it is not a debate at all.

Of course the sun is causing global warming. Where else would the energy input come from? Cosmic rays? (obviously not)

The part that interests me the most is how carbon dioxide is no longer a strong infrared absorber. That has huge implications in spectrophotometry, chemistry and physical science overall. Seriously, that's like Nobel prize material. It is most incredible.

Do you realise what this means for synthetic and analytical chemistry? The pharmaceutical industry? This is huge.

The real question is why haven't any chemists or physicists stepped forward to validate this radical change in the physics of our universe?

[Bonk]

Further, the salient point to note in the report linked is:

I should also caution that extrapolating this data beyond the 15 years will not yield valid results. Significant variations from one decade to the next are common, and a sustained increase in solar irradiance such as that shown here would be climatically devastating.

However it does not say anywhere in the article that "THE SUN IS CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING".

And of course my comments about the sudden disappearance of the IR absorbtion of carbon dioxide were facetious.

The point being, if carbon dioxide levels and solar irradiance are both increasing then it cannot be good. We'll fast hit the stage where water vapour would be a bigger factor than carbon dioxide (stronger IR absorber still), and we really do not want to go there as the article author indicates.

So, knowing that solar radiation is increasing (in Colorado, over 20 years, as measured at one lab), and that carbon dioxide is a strong IR absorber, what is the harm in minimising anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions? I don't see why the issue is so emotionally charged. (Perhaps because I do not have children?) It all seems pretty clear cut to me. There is something we can do to ameliorate the situation in our limited capacity so why not? (knowing that we have no real direct control over the sun, and that our environment is entirely dependent on the sun, by definition)

I don't think anyone is hiding anything, I think people are just forgetting that the majority of scientific data needs to be viewed with an extremely critical eye. Everyone treats papers on the subject as gospel. There is no need for papers on the subject really, as we know exactly what we can do and what we cannot. (Try reading a few scientific journals consistently for a few decades and trust me, a lot of it is pretty weak, there is only the occasional strong and significant work) Also, I have worked in government labs...

On the subject of the author's data, I think the trend he has observed is weak at best and my experience in multivariate data analysis would lead me to reject it from a larger set of data as a significant relationship. If anything the observations they recorded are valuable as record of the effect of Pinatubo and they indicate that they got more solar radiation at the surface for the last few years  (which is consistent with my memory of the climate in the last 20 years). Those two factors are enough to create the observed trend and as the author indicates, the data cannot be extrapolated beyond 15 years (and that would be a stretch in my opinion).

Take a look at the representation of the absorption spectrum of our atmosphere at the top of the last page of this report, it is illuminating.

So it is not time to panic yet, but if the trend of the last few years continues then we do have something to worry about, and one of the few things we can do is minimise or eliminate the carbon dioxide emissions we know will only aggravate the situation.

It is pretty simple.

[Panzergranate]

The point is that CO2 alone is being cited as the cause and all other reasons for Global warming are attacked and dismissed.

CO2 is a minority green house gas compared to N2O, Methane, etc.

The planet's Methane levels in the upper atomosphere are higher due to the abnormally large amounts of Herbiforous animals (cattle) on the planet as a whole. In nature, there simply wouldn't be so many.

The main Methane producers are Termites though.

It is just suspicious that CO2 is singled out as the causer of all evils, despite the total human race contribution amounting to less than 1% of the global total, when the Sun, Methane, N2O and a few other contributers to the problem are deleberately ignored.

The "Carbon Footprint" concept is more about social engineering than the climate, and, any social engineering through deception and coercion has a name.... Facism!!

I have a, coincidentaly, pretty low "Carbon Footprint" in that I don't drive a car because I ride motorcycles (the most effcient way to move one person from (A) to (B) quickly). I don't exercise other than walk up to a mile a day, thus keeping my personal expulsion of CO2 low (Shame on you joggers!!) I've never flown on civilian aircraft, only millitary, in the past.

I use Solar panel to charge up bike batteries and run fans around the house in the summer. (We didn't actually have one this year in Europe!!)

I like playing around with electric vehicles, especially fast and powerful ones. They are the future once the cheap fuel cell problem is solved.  That's all that is holding back the electric car and motorcycle, practical and cheap fuel cells.

Of course, my "Carbon Footprint" and those of everyone else on the planet has absolutely zero effect on the planet's climate.

I'll not mention my "Methane Footprint"!!

However, we all have a "Polution Footprint" with which we could all do our bit to minimalise. That has a bigger effect on the environment than the amount of CO2 we generate does.



 

[Fedman NCC-3758]

There is absolutely no correlation to anthropogenic levels of  Co2 and global climate change.

[Panzergranate]

Of cousre the nuclear lobby is very keen to raise their ugly heads and back the CO2 theory, and then say, "We can solve the world's energy problems!!"

Sure.... like we'd be stupid enough to trust those guys!!

I think that the only way to clear this up would be to have it in a court where all sides have to submit their arguments, evidence, science, funding, etc. under oath and the rules of a court of law. Then they'd have to convince a jury.

At least then all the cards would be face up on the table for all to see.

[Nemesis]

Check on the radioactive materials released by burning coal and oil.   You might be surprised how much radiation is being pumped into the environment from those 2 sources.

[Bonk]

Sure.... like we'd be stupid enough to trust those guys!!

Trust American or Soviet nuclear technology? Not in a million years.

Canadian nuclear technology however, I have the utmost faith in. I need not repeat why, as I have stated so many times and no one ever acknowledges it, perhaps because they do not have the required science knowledge, or perhaps it is just too hard for people to accept that Canada is a world leader in anything.

I think that the only way to clear this up would be to have it in a court where all sides have to submit their arguments, evidence, science, funding, etc. under oath and the rules of a court of law. Then they'd have to convince a jury.

At least then all the cards would be face up on the table for all to see.

You would trust a detailed scientific analysis to a jury? Oi. Scary thought, scary thought man. Especially when one considers the efficacy of the legal system in criminal and civil matters.

There is absolutely no correlation to anthropogenic levels of  Co2 and global climate change.

Sayeth the son of an oil man...   ...just teasing Fedman. I know you are a critical thinker and would have come to that conclusion logically. Besides, coal fired power generating stations are the big issue really much more than oil fired automobiles. (for other pollution reasonsa as well)

However, as a chemist with absolutley no interest or bias in the matter (I have no investments, I have no kids, I probably won't live more than 20 more years and I don't much care what happens after I'm dead.), my view on the matter is very simple and does not even include green house effects, it is simply a matter of accurate science and common sense. It goes like this:


Carbon dioxide is a strong infra red absorber. What that means specifically is that electromagnetic energy in the infra red region of the spectrum will vibrationally excite carbon dioxide (and other molecules). These absorptions correspond to particular vibrational states of the molecule which are of course quantised and their wavelength, form and intensity are predicted reasonably accurately by current theory. The infra-red region of the suns spectrum is small compared to the whole but is the most important thermally (precisely because IR corresponds to vibrational energy levels of molecules, much as microwave radiation corresponds to rotational energy levels - like water in your counter-top microwave).

(thank goodness we're not discussing raman spectroscopy, which while related is more difficult to grasp and explain)

Ok, so carbon dioxide absorbs infra-red light from solar and terrestrial sources. It is excited to a vibrational energy level above its ground state that corresponds to the wavelength of light that hit it. Now this molecule is moving around. The majority of vibrational relaxation processes are mechanical (particularly in the gas phase), thus the energy of the infra red radiation that vibrationally excited this molecule is ultimately transferred to the translational kinetic energy of adjoining molecules (temperature). Then the original molecule is ready for another photon at the right ir wavelength to repeat the process again ad infinitum.  (note some vibrational relaxtion processes are emissive as in a glowing metal or blackbody type radiation sources, or specific designs like those in IR spectrophotometers)

Alright, so we have established that infrared radiation increases the temperature of a mixture of gas that contains carbon dioxide (ditto for water vapour). Now it is argued about the limits of this effect and the way I see it the higher the concentration of CO₂ then the higher the temperature can get from incident and reflected IR. It would take me time to prove it but I am confident I could (damn phys chem is such a pita with math).

OK, given all that, now you tell me that the sun may be getting hotter? (As in the article linked and discussed above.) Well then, given the above, why wouldn't we want to minimise CO₂ emissions? (Especially where superior technology exists.)

(P.S. Panzer: "because it's fascism!" is no answer, while funny, it does not answer the question.)

A sample of where I'm coming from:
http://www.spectronic.co.uk/ftir-spectrophotometers/interspec200.html
http://www.thermo.com/com/cda/landingpage/0,10255,353,00.html

[Panzergranate]

Well I'm an advocate of electric propusion, which is held up by the dependance on charged battery technology. Still witing for the fuel cell the world's been promised for some time now.

The Nuclear Lobby has raised its ugly head, pointed at the CO2 issue and said that they have the answer to the world's enertgy needs......... like we'd trust those guys ever again!!

I can't see how playing around with or 0.8% contribution of the world's CO2 is going to make a big difference. It's like trying to slow down the sinking of the Titanic by closing a few doors and portholes.

Automotive CO2 amounts to 0.002% globally and so is negligable.

Out f the 0.8%:

Just over a third is human respiratory.

The rest is industry and airlines combined.

Global warming is here, and may end in 2012 when the current Solar cycle ends or it may continue into the next Solar cycle.

Meanwhile, instead of figuring how to cope with the problem, governments and envioronmentalist are more concerned with "Arranging Deck Chairs on the Titanic!!", as the famous eupherism goes.

I run Solar panels here. I recycle. I introduce a previous employer to the profitabilty of selling on otherwise dumped waste materials. I keep my polution footprint as low as practical.

I think that the whole causes arguement should be settled in a court, with a jury, under rules of law, with evidence, science, etc. laid out under oath and scrutinty, with nothing omitted, then perhaps we'd be nearer the truth.

I'm an engineer and when confronted by a problem with multiple causes, I don't leave out the largest factor when trying to calculate the solution. It would be kind of stupid. It would distort the outcome and therefore make it a nonsense.

Why can't more gadjets and things be Solar panel charged??

Mobile phones, kettles, radios, torches, microwaves, cordless drills and tool, etc. eh??

Perhaps then we wouldn't need so mains electric power, therefore less powerstation output, etc.

Nature is causing this problem, or rather, something outside of this planets's nature is causing the problem and mankind will have to engineer a way around the problem, jut like we've always done for thousands of years.

[Bonk]

The point is that CO2 alone is being cited as the cause and all other reasons for Global warming are attacked and dismissed.

CO2 is a minority green house gas compared to N2O, Methane, etc.

The planet's Methane levels in the upper atomosphere are higher due to the abnormally large amounts of Herbiforous animals (cattle) on the planet as a whole. In nature, there simply wouldn't be so many.

The main Methane producers are Termites though.

It is just suspicious that CO2 is singled out as the causer of all evils, despite the total human race contribution amounting to less than 1% of the global total, when the Sun, Methane, N2O and a few other contributers to the problem are deleberately ignored.

Note in my previous post I am not looking at greenhouse effects at all, IR absorbtion alone. And anthropogenic CO2 sure looks like more than 0.8% in any carbon cycle I've ever seen.

I can't see how playing around with or 0.8% contribution of the world's CO2 is going to make a big difference. It's like trying to slow down the sinking of the Titanic by closing a few doors and portholes.

Automotive CO2 amounts to 0.002% globally and so is negligable.

Out f the 0.8%:

Just over a third is human respiratory.

The rest is industry and airlines combined

Do you have a source for these stats? I doubt this 0.8% figure. (However, I do not doubt that even 0.8% could make a significant difference with my experience with chemical equilibria)

The Nuclear Lobby has raised its ugly head, pointed at the CO2 issue and said that they have the answer to the world's enertgy needs......... like we'd trust those guys ever again!!

* Bonk sighs...

Again with the ignoring Canadian nuclear technology! Its like we don't exist or something. Hey, our dollar is at parity with the US - doesn't that count for something? 

[Panzergranate]

The thing with Nuclear waste is that everyone sends their spent fuel rods to Britain for reprocessing!!

We have the French dumping Nuclear waste into OUR channel as well!!

The thing with Nuclear is that one idiot doing something stupid, as in Chernobyl, can kill thousands.

There was talk of building a Geothermal power station locally here in the South of England near Southampton, back in the 1980's. A few test bores were drilled but the project just halted as interest was lost.
 
Iceland, as everyone knows, is totally Geothermic reliant for power.

Anyway, CO2 is not the major problem with coal fired power stations, what about the carcenogensand other polutants??

Actually Geothermal has a lot going for it, low envioronmental inpact, free power source, simple, etc.

[Fedman NCC-3758]

why wouldn't we want to minimise CO2 emissions?

Because next to the worlds oceans, which are by far the greatest producers of Co2, we'd basically be just spitting in the wind and harming the economies of many countries.  Not to mention the hindering of developing nations. Particularly in Africa.

Human industry is no more causing global climate change now than it did during the medieval warming period that allowed Viking settlements to thrive in Greenland for 300 years.  800 AD to 1100AD.

Reminds me of the lady I met while visiting the Athabasca glacier.  They have signs showing where the glacier had been in previous decades and she remarked,"See?" "This clearly demonstrates global warming."  I said, "You're correct ma'am." " It's been receding now since the end of the last ice age, 10,000 years ago".

In fact, if the Earth hadn't warmed up some, Manhattan would still be under a mile of ice.

[Bonk]

why wouldn't we want to minimise CO2 emissions?

Because next to the worlds oceans, which are by far the greatest producers of Co2, we'd basically be just spitting in the wind and harming the economies of many countries.  Not to mention the hindering of developing nations. Particularly in Africa.

That is no answer. And we have already covered that here:
http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163374663.0.html
(The oceans are a carbon sink in every carbon cycle I have ever seen)

Africa is not currently a concern, China yes. Even so, I would argue that a Candu solution for a developing nation in Africa is far better than six new coal generating stations. But that is not really the issue here.

The question is why add more heat if observations tell us that the sun is already heating at an alarming rate. How can it help to add more heat? I like cool weather myself. (OK there's my interest in the matter, got me, lol!)

Human industry is no more causing global climate change now than it did during the medieval warming period that allowed Viking settlements to thrive in Greenland for 300 years.  800 AD to 1100AD.

Still does not address my question, and is another arguement in itself. (Needless to say I do not agree with the statement, though find the discussion irrelevant to my question)

Reminds me of the lady I met while visiting the Athabasca glacier.  They have signs showing where the glacier had been in previous decades and she remarked,"See?" "This clearly demonstrates global warming."  I said, "You're correct ma'am." " It's been receding now since the end of the last ice age, 10,000 years ago".

How is this woman's ignorance of glaciation, climate cycles and atmospheric physics and chemistry relevant to my question?

In fact, if the Earth hadn't warmed up some, Manhattan would still be under a mile of ice.

Let's assume everyone in this discussion has a basic concept of the geological and climatic history of earth for now, OK?


So if the sun is getting hotter, why should we add more CO2 knowing it can only make us hotter still? How is that a good idea?

[Fedman NCC-3758]

why should we add more CO2 knowing it can only make us hotter still?

There is no evidence to support this assertion.

The temperature curve precedes the Co2 curve. Not vice versa.