Topic: Something that's being deliberately ignored!!

[Panzergranate]

But why make a fuss about CO2 when we contribute so little??

Why not just reduce fossil fuel power stations, anyway, because of all the other more lethal polutants that they generate??

The UK hs gradually phased out its aging coal fired power stations since the 1980's because of the cost of fueling them compared to gas fired equivalents.

All we need to make a power station work is a means to heat water until it generates enough steam presure to spin a turbine.

All we need to do is figure out various non-poluting ways of doing this.

It has been pointed out that is Gottleib hadn't invented the motorcycle, or the motorcar two years later, it would have made negligiable difference to the situation now.

I don't own a car and never have. I've never seen the point in having more than two or three wheels and an engine to move one person from (A) to (B) quickly.

The fact remains that Mars is also hotting up and there are records for Mars observations going back more than a century or two.

Greenland is returning to the state the Vikings found it in during the Medieval Warming Period, though I think that it'll be a while before the abundant forests, game and pastures they described will be witnessed again.

Will Edinburgh have Vineyards again, something that it hasn't had since the mid 1400's??

The world was 6 Degrees wamer, back then, than it is now.

Archeologists also know that Stone Henge was built during another warming period 3,500 years ago, when Britain enjoyed the climate of Southern France.

It has happened before, before we had industry.

Why are historical facts are also being hushed up, doctored or ignored to try to make recent events more dramatic??

There are too many questions that are being avoided that need answering.

At the moment in Europe, Mount Etna is on the go so Europe's compete Carbon Reduction efforts are kind of screwed for the next 20 years.

In 2012 the current Solar Cycle ends.

Now if nothing happens and all the temperatures fall, then there are going to be a lot of angry people and a lot of discredited scientists with destroyed reputations. I predict that, if the temperatures do start to fall, a lot of turn coating, excuses, explainations, claims that a slight dip was predicted and that it'll go up again, etc. will start to appear.

The down turn started in 2006.

[Fedman NCC-3758]

But why make a fuss about CO2 when we contribute so little??

Because this isn't about science or saving the planet.  It's a political agenda.

And the hype is necessary to keep the government grants flowing.

Remember, 30 years ago we were heading in the opposite direction.

[Panzergranate]

"Ice Bergs in the Thames", was one headline back then.

The trouble is also that the climatologists disagree with the envioronmentalists over the interepation of the Ice Cores. The sea takes 80 years to react to a global temperature increase, so sea ice cores will only reflect climate events 80 years after they happened. The envioronmentalists say that the sea ice cores show events as they happened.

And then there is the arguments between the two groups as to the CO2 contained trapped in the ice and what it means.

The Climatologists correctly point out that the sea is a CO2 producer and the Envioronmentalist point out that the sea is a CO2 sink, which woul dmean that no animal life lives there.

It is more about social engineering and coercion than saving the planet.

Public transport, here in the UK is a joke!!

For me to travel to town, 2 miles away, by motocycle costs me 2 pence. If I decide to go by bus it costs me £1.50 (About $3.70). People obviously still used their cars here in the UK because there is no sensible alternative for transport.

If you cross the tale of Chicken Little with the Emporer's New Clothes, there is a similar analigy.

If the number don't add up, they don't add up. Trying to leave out all the numbers that spoil the results can't make something work out properly.

The majority of the British public are skeptical, and after the lack of summer weather (we had a Welsh summer this year, as in lots of rain!!) the UK envioronmentalists have changed "Global Warming" into "Climate Change", in the hope that the public will buy the new packaging.

I reckon that by 2009 we should see either the climate still heating up or a lot of panicking scientists and envioronmentalists,

Why is it, that when the cold war ended and we we no longer facing oblivion, the doom and gloom merchants start up with tales to keep folks awake at night.

First it was a comet / asteroid could smash into us.

Then the Ozone Hole.

Global Warming (Climate Change now for Europe!!)

If this one proves to be a dud, what next, alien invasion?? Super Virus?? No wait, they've already started that scare story just in case!!

[Bonk]

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.

I'll assume that you have not even read my posts, as this statement indicates pretty clearly that you at least did not read the part where I explained the infrared absorptions of CO2. So read my post and try that again. Or are you saying that CO2 has magically stopped absorbing infrared radiation? (There would be huge implications throughout science if this is the case, and I'm sure I would have heard of it by now)

The Climatologists correctly point out that the sea is a CO2 producer and the Envioronmentalist point out that the sea is a CO2 sink, which woul dmean that no animal life lives there.

Panzer, you know this is completely wrong. We have already discussed this.


These two statements indicate that this discussion is over, as the facts that I present are repeatedly ignored to preserve political interpretations. (This is science not politics.)

I will not repeat myself any further simply to be ignored.

I have no agenda, just accurate science. I'll decline the drama and present the science and my questions. If you choose to ignore them then there is nothing I can do about that.

[Panzergranate]

The whole climate debate is political and became that the moment that the climatologists started to try and influence governements to start meddling in people's lives, futures and properity.

By attempting to restrict or prevent 3rd world development, the crusade to dorp CO2 emission will condem millions to poverty, starvation and stagnation, instead of allowing them to progress.

And the fact that teh science is questionable and that contary science is attacked, dismissed or slandered in the prusuit of a Green political goal means that it has now become a political issue. The Greens moved it into the political arena, not the public, and use scientists allied to their cause to promote their lobby.

So NASA is lyingabout the Solar system heating up?? The Martian ice poles melting are just a misiterpretation or mistake or dust on the camera??

It is this, and other attacks on anyone questioning the CO2 cause or accidentally publishing any findings that contravene the "concensus" as dictated by the Green bank rolled scientists, that has Joe Public suspicions raised.

Accusing any scientist or person who raises a hand and says, "Hey, this doesn't add up or fit the eveidence!!" as receiving back handers from the oil barons, etc. is Politics and not science.

When only those scientists approved are allowed to discuss Climate Change are allowed on the media.

Scientists with doubts are bullied and fearful to raise a hand to speak up, having seen the character assasinations handed down to those who dared to question the mantra. You only have to search the web for examples how the Eco-Nazis attack and attempt to discredit contrary scientists who refuse to sing from the hymn sheet.

Everyone will nod, "Yes" when threatened with dire consequences.

Hence the so called claim that the majority of scientists agree with the CO2 cause...... because if they dare voice their doubts, well.

The CO2 issue has become a tool for fanatics to realise their political dreams and they're determined to deter all who might derail it by fair means or foul.

The Politics overtook the science years before we started this debate.

I just want to see the whole Climate Change issue to return to proper open scientific scrutiny, without fear of censure, as is in place at the present time, with all the factors involved are stated, quanified, etc. Then, perhaps, we can engineer a way around the problem.

I quit my funding supporting Greenpeace when the disenfrancised anti-capatalists and communists hi-jacked the movement for political ends, pushed out the founder and started on their own agenda.

[Bonk]

I agree, its all far too political, its about science and science tells me that adding CO2 to our atmosphere can only make it warmer. This is doubly significant if the sun is getting hotter.

I don't think that reducing CO2 emissions is condemning developing nations in the least. (My government has no real control over that anyway.)

The CO2 issue has become a tool for fanatics to realise their political dreams and they're determined to deter all who might derail it by fair means or foul.

That's not my fault and does not change what I know about gas phase IR absorption. (As clearly I have no political aspirations, ack! I'd rather die than enter public politics...)

I'm not a politician, just a chemist. What I know tells me that if I had money I would be investing in top refridgeration and air conditioning technologies.

I have a better idea than just sooking out on the discussion as in my last post.

Let's be real geeks and perform an experiment in parallel! 
(with regard to the oceans as carbon sinks vs sources - the odd idea that a carbon sink is fatal to life that Panzer keeps bringing up)

I propose the following protocol:
- take four clean glasses of tap water (use the same type of glass for all four - and make it glass not plastic).
- label them 1-4
- get four packaged straws and label them 1-4 (keep them clean, separate and near their own glass - but don't actually clean them)
- into each glass place 250 ml of water and a pinch (1/8 teaspoon max) of salt. (mark the level of the water on the outside of the glass)
- into glasses 3 and 4 add 1/4 teaspoon of sugar
- stir each glass with its own straw slowly for the count of 10
- keep all three glasses near to each other in a stable room temperature location.
- Now, the important part, into glasses 2 and 4, use the straw to blow bubbles for the count of 30 seconds once a day (~6x5 second  or 3x10s slow exhalations). Also, use breath actually exhaled from your lungs, not just air taken into your mouth.
- Also make the same motions with the straws for glasses 1 and 3 but do not actually blow any bubbles.
- On the second day and each day thereafter, top up the water from the same tap carefully and gently.
- Do not cross contaminate the samples in any way.
- Record the progress of any growths with good notes and photographically if possible.
- (Advanced) Using the same roll of broad range pH paper monitor the pH of each glass before and after the daily bubbles procedure by using its allocated straw as a pipet to withdraw a few drops from the center of the sample then deposit a drop on the pH paper and record the results.
After several weeks of this procedure,we could then asses the carbon content of each glass by a number of means. (hopefully without having to pay someone)

I'm reasonably confident that the results will show you that a carbon sink is perfectly capable of supporting life. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure it will work as designed, though wildlife has a tendency to grow pretty freely in my kitchen! 

So what do you think - game?

[Panzergranate]

Trying to cut down on personal CO2 emmissions is pointless anyway. We have Mount Etna spewing out 20 years worth of Europe's total CO2, cancelling out everyone's efforts in one hit.

Nature is uncontrolable, even by today's human race.

Nature sorts out atmospheric CO2 by iitself with Trees, Plants and rain.

It rains virtually constantly in Wales, the country is famous for rain. In fact there is no word in Welsh for drought!! Rainwater is Carbonic Acid, varying in strength depending where you experience it. Therefore, Wales (and Seatle) is a goo Carbon sink!!

 

[FCM_SFHQ_XC]

Trying to cut down on personal CO2 emmissions is pointless anyway. We have Mount Etna spewing out 20 years worth of Europe's total CO2, cancelling out everyone's efforts in one hit.

Nature is uncontrolable, even by today's human race.

Nature sorts out atmospheric CO2 by iitself with Trees, Plants and rain.

It rains virtually constantly in Wales, the country is famous for rain. In fact there is no word in Welsh for drought!! Rainwater is Carbonic Acid, varying in strength depending where you experience it. Therefore, Wales (and Seatle) is a goo Carbon sink!!

No matter if or if not 98%-99% of out CO₂ is coming from nature itself, there still is that extra 1%-2% coming from us. Despite if Mt. Etna makes it seem like a small amount, I still have 1-2% extra CO₂ floating around that should not be there. That 1%-2% is not negligible in any way. While I am not gonna argue over if its the sun or not causing global warming, I do think that extra CO₂ is bad. Cut down on the pollution even if it is only 1%-2% of the total CO₂ produced. It still is 1%-2% too much.

[Panzergranate]

It is the smog and carcenogen gases that are the biggest concern to the human race.

It's bad enough that it isn't safe to eat a fish caught out of some rivers in the world.

CO2 can be dealt with naturally, toxic waste doesn't go away for centuries.

Some places in the owrld, are still poisoned by toxic waste activity from the 19th century, Europe and the US included!!

To dispose fo excess CO2 just plant more trees.

It annoys me that a lot of companies claiming Green credentials through publicly boasting their "Carbon Neutrality" are causing polution behind their backs.

The lame "Carbon Neutral" proganda cheme, at the moment, is pointless. Automotivve vehicles are a molecule in the drop in the ocean whenit comes to Carbon Emissions.

The environmentalists have been wrong before. Remember the 2 stroke ban in the US back in 1977, which was lifted 5 years ago after US givernment scientist bothered to test the 2 stoke engine and found it to be enviornmentally cleaner than the 4 stroke or Diesel?? Knee jerk blind legislation due to envionmentist presure, with out serious unbiased scientific research is never a good idea.

A 2 stroke emits 2% N2O per volume of fuel compared to 48% per volume of fuel created by a 4 stroke. You also only need 2/5ths the size of a 2 stroke engine to achieve the same torque and horsepower of a 4 stroke motor. Most automobile manufacturers in the world are now looking at the 2 stroke ad emission controls and cat converters have the 4 stroke's days numbered. Two stroke don't need a cat converter.

The advent of synthetic oil has inproved theor emissions a lot and no more scraping out a small coal mine of hard carbon dust deposits every 4 months or so.

Diesels are, by far, the most poluting engines, according to US government research. However, what else can an 18 wheeler be powered by, eh??!!

 

[Lieutenant_Q]

Its really time for the Rail system, the back bone of the United States Economy for over one-hundred and fifty years, to get a good look at.  Currently the preferred method of transporting goods is either by plane (quickly) or by Truck (Cheaply).  Neither one of these is good for the environment.  Meanwhile our Rail Lines have been slowly deteriorating since the 60s.  Why?  The locomotives of the trains put out more pollution than the Millions of trucks on the highway daily?  Not anymore.  And if we would invest some money into the rail lines, we could also get faster, and cleaner mass transportation.  Freight Trains can be run on an electrified rail that would almost eliminate all pollution from the train itself.  If the local power grid supplying the energy to Rail is clean, then the transportation itself is clean.

Why are the airlines getting Billions in tax breaks and gov't relief, when a cheaper and potentially faster alternative is available?

[Bonk]

The lame "Carbon Neutral" proganda cheme, at the moment, is pointless. Automotivve vehicles are a molecule in the drop in the ocean whenit comes to Carbon Emissions.

The environmentalists have been wrong before. Remember the 2 stroke ban in the US back in 1977, which was lifted 5 years ago after US givernment scientist bothered to test the 2 stoke engine and found it to be enviornmentally cleaner than the 4 stroke or Diesel?? Knee jerk blind legislation due to envionmentist presure, with out serious unbiased scientific research is never a good idea.

I am not an environmentalist. I am a chemist. I have no financial, political or emotional interest in the matter whatsoever.

Adding carbon dioxide (no matter how minute the amount) to a mixture of gases that is exposed to infrared radiation can only increase the temperature of that mixture of gases. This is plain scientific fact, no theory whatsoever. There is no question in the matter, debating the point is even absurd, I'm surprised that I've had the patience to explain it slowly this many times.

[parmenionsShade]

To put all of my biases out in the open: I'm a right-leaning American undergraduate studying theoretical physics.

The I see this is: the arguments in favor of reducing green-house gas emissions are that CO2 increases the temperature of any gas mixture in which it is contained, that the level of CO2 emissions caused by the human race has increased dramatically over the last (insert time period-I've seen various numbers quoted), and that the mean temperature of the planet has been increasing over the same time period.

All of these are simple facts, and anyone who argues against them is in denial of modern scientific knowledge.  This being a rational, well-educated crowd, no one has.

But the reason we need to Do Something is that if we keep producing CO2 at current rates dire things will happen to our planet.

This is where things get sticky.  The predictions of a submerged Florida and co. are based on computer modeling of the Earth's climate.  There are several problems with this.  First of all, the first rule of complex computer simulations is that they have little predictive power: you use them to determine the sensitivity of a system to changes in various variables.  Second, many of the parameters in the description of the Earth's climate are unknown; the simulating scientists need to make estimates.  And very slight changes in variables/parameters can result in widely different results in simulations.  Chaos theory was developed when a climate modeling scientist rounded off decimal places on a variable and got widely different results.  So the predictions of doom are based on using a tool for a purpose for which it was not designed, and ignoring its limitations.  Clearly, the computer modeling data is of negligible value.  Example: computer models in the seventies were telling us we'd all be snowed under right now.

So what's making the Earth warmer?  Sure, we're pumping a lot more CO2 into the atmosphere, but there are a lot of other things going on as well.  The sun is getting warmer, and the sun is BY FAR the most important parameter in the system.  Mars is experiencing global warming as well, and I think we can all agree that human-based CO2 emissions on Mars are trivial.

It appears to me that the Sun is the primary factor.  I also don't think my more southern relations will have to buy SCUBA gear any time soon.  The Earth has been much warmer than now within recorded history.  The best examples have already been brought up: Viking settlements in Greenland and vineyards in Britain.

[Panzergranate]

I see, on another post, that cattle and other ruminants emit 18% of the greenhouse gases, Methane.

Now perhaps the answer there would be to shove fillters up their arses (and a few flatulent people's arses too!!) in the cause of "Climate Change"!!

Somehow I think that natire is determined to undergo Climate Change or Global Warming, depending om where one lives. All our efforts are pointless against the massive machine that is nature.

We can't ban Cattle or Sheep, I mean the Welsh need Sheep for sex!! (You'd understand once you realise that Welsh women have PMT for 28 days of the month and for the rest they're just in a foul mood!!)

And if we all became Vegans, er..... Vegans fart a lot plus always look pasty grey and scrawny. Then there's the long term health implications too.

We're all riding a runaway and there are no brakes to apply. Best brace for impact!!

[Fedman NCC-3758]

What's the número uno greenhouse gas?

Water vapor?



We're doomed.

[Panzergranate]

Perhap, like the Millenium Bug scare scam us engineers foisted on the gullable world, to make a few bucks....aw feck, let the cat out of the bag there!!

Anyway, like the Millenium Bug paranoia and scare, it'll probally turn out nothing like the doom and gloom merchants are describing. I'm betting on nothing bad happening at all!!

[Tulwar]

The question is mute.  Anybody notice that the debate on global warming substantially came to an end just as everyone realized that the occupation of Iraq is an unmitigated disaster?  The political and military control of the Western powers over the petroleum producing regions of the earth is waning at the same time the same powers are declaring that the over-use of petroleum is destroying the world.  It is an excellent coincidence.  It encourages the West to stop using resources it cannot control, lessening the value of those resources.  Do not knock the science behind global warming unless you really want to bow to the likes of Putin, Chavez, and Bin Ladin.

Talk about using your dinner plate for a toilet!

[Bonk]

What's the número uno greenhouse gas?

Water vapor?



We're doomed.

You expect me to be surprised? I'm not. I'm a chemist. Nor does this defeat my argument that anthropogenic carbon dioxide can only increase the temperature of our atmosphere and aggravate any solar warming trend that may be occurring.

Now, let me tell you about water vapour and infrared absorptions, as I have been discussing IR absorptions. Yes water is the strongest greenhouse gas, but it is also a strong infrared absorber. (I have not been discussing greenhouse effects here at all, as that is a matter of physics (optics in materials of graduated/variable index of refraction - i.e. the atmosphere). We can get to those later if necessary.

Water is a strong infrared absorber much as it is a strong microwave absorber. The geometry of water is well suited to vibrational and rotational energy levels corresponding to strong EM absorbtions. Water is more trouble than anything in analytical infrared spectrophotometry as it is so pervasive and pernicious. Not to mention the optics in the system that will dissolve in it. Water is the bain of infrared spectrophotometry for these reasons... ok, chemistry side rant over...

Now what determines the partial pressure of water vapour in our atmosphere? Temperature. Water is the critical gas in global warming. You see, as increased carbon dioxide will increase the temperature, this will allow for a greater partial pressure of water in the atmosphere, thus increasing the temperature and eventually water establishes its own self sustaining warming cycle. This is referred to as the "critical point". (not to be confused with the critical point that defines a supercritical fluid)

OK, now compound that self sustaining trend with anthropogenic carbon dioxide ready to explode in developing nations with a market that must continually grow feeding that self sustaining upward trend. This obviously cannot go on forever. That is the point here ultimately.

I have heard estimates that this critical point may be reached as early as 2013, though have no source and doubt any estimate could be accurate to the year, except in the year it is observed.

I used to think we were doomed and actually cared about it, though I do not anymore and seem to have a little more faith that education will win, and that the earth's equilibrium will bounce back.

So lets definitely keep the focus on the scientific discussion here. I'm glad you brought up water Fedman, as it illustrates perfectly the cascading effect of perturbations in related natural equilibria, and how a small perturbation in one system can result in a very large one in another.

[Soliton]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm

Last Updated: Tuesday, 10 July 2007, 23:00 GMT 00:00 UK

A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.

It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.

It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed.

Writing in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings A, the researchers say cosmic rays may have affected climate in the past, but not the present.

"This should settle the debate," said Mike Lockwood, from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland.

[Panzergranate]

A machine failing becaue of pushing it slightly over the edge, is called "Catastropic Failure" in engineering. Think of a suspension bridge loosing one to many cables or the straw that broke the Camel's back.

However, in machines that can compensate for conditions, like poking a spinning top so that it wobbles for a while, they will eventually correct and stabalise themselves.

Nature is one such compensating system.

The human body is another such system.

I see that farting, more over cattle farting generate more greenhouse gases. Unfortunately, there are far more cattle than nature would normally allow on the planet in the wild. They're numbers are kind of out of balance with nature, just like ours and a few other creatures.

The planet is determined to warm up, just like its done before and mankind is just as helpless to stop it as King Canute was in stopping the incoming tide. We couldn't stop the last one, which started in 900 AD and couldn't prevent its sudden end in the late 1400's, which brought in the Mini Ice Age. Back then they just believed that it was the will of God or the forces of nature, put up, and just dealt with it.

"All the plans of mice and men, all amount to naught!!"

At least we're forewarned that its coming and, just like a storm, can at least prepare for it.

However, there are other goverrnment Solar monitoring Stations that say that the Sun is heating up.

The Amateur radio wolrd has had the best "Lift" and "Skip" season ever, due to the increased charging of the Earth's ionisphere. Only Solar activity drives this and it follows the 11 year Solar energy cycles.

There is a lot of evidence that the Sun is chucking out more radiation. Several scientific and other bodies, with no interest or stake in the Climate Debate, have reported the effects.

It's strange that the Royal Society has seemingly ignored Solar pyrometer and other measurement data from observatories in dozens of other countries all around the globe, which have reported an increase in Solar activity.

Perhaps this report is biased towards the CO2 debate, or maybe the report was just based on the Rutherford Laboratory's own independant measurements and data. However, it seems strangely odd that they've ignored NASA, world wide Solar observatories,the SOHO sateliltes and other data.

We've had a very poor summer this year in the UK, and the envioronmentalists here have replaced talk of "Global Warming" to "Cliimate Change", obviously as Britain and Europe are cooling down.

They also keep harping on about the sea levels rising in the UK, so much so that a leading geolgist had to publicaly, on TV,  point out that the UK is slowly rising on the North coast of Scotland and sinking in the South Coast. In the past 300 years some parts of the North Coast of Scotland have seen the sea recede more than 8 miles!!

Why don't the various scientific bodies talk to each other before making various claims in ignorance of understanding the mechanisms and true causes.

It become the stage where if one report says one thing against the CO2 argument, the writers are accused or suspected of being in the pay or in league with the oil barons, and if the report is pro CO2 arguement, the writers are suspected of being in the pay or in league with the fanatical envioronmentaists.

And they wonder why Joe Public is so skeptical over the whole thing, especially when the mud slinging starts between scientists et all!!

And ten we have governemnts, here in Europe and the UK, trying to put "Green" taxes onto us, in the name of "Climate Change Prevention" and social engineering, so that only the rich can afford fuel for thier vehicles and the proles end up using expensive and unreliable public transport, which is a big joke in the UK.

 

[Sirgod]

I found this kinda Interesting when I saw it today...

http://www.livescience.com/environment/071019-ap-ozone-hole.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Antarctic ozone hole is back to an average size, shrinking about 16 percent from last year's record high, NASA said Friday. But it's still the size of North America.

But what jumped out at me, was this part...

Warmer weather and more storms this year are the reason the hole is slightly smaller, Newman said. "There's no way we could say we're seeing real improvement, but it's smaller because of the weather situation,'' Newman said.

Could there be any more of a contradiction in science?

We are told the hole needs to be fixed or we all die yet global warming seems to be the cure but that will cause us all to die...

and people wonder why so many doubt these climatologists...

Stephen