Remember me
▼ Content

Cause and effect


Cause and effect29-11-2018 16:11
gerrygerry
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
Why is it assumed the rise in temperature "Global warming" is caused by an increase in CO2.
Not that a rise in atmospheric CO2 is caused by a rise in temperature.
Warming oceans absorb less gasses including CO2.
The earth temp has always fluctuated, warm age, ice age and back?
Also, water vapour is a more potent "greenhouse" gas but always dismissed or never mentioned in the debate. I know it goes thru phase changes, but these are only exchanges of energy, the energy (heat) is still stored in the water.
29-11-2018 19:06
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(222)
gerrygerry wrote:
Why is it assumed the rise in temperature "Global warming" is caused by an increase in CO2.........


CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" and the atmospheric concentration has increased from about 285 parts per million (by volume) to about 400 ppm during the past two centuries.

Water vapor is also a "greenhouse gas" and has a greater "greenhouse effect" than CO2 but isn't increasing in atmospheric concentration appreciably. Unlike CO2, water vapor will condense in the atmosphere. It rains liquid water rather than water vapor accumulating indefinitely.

Water vapor does move a lot of energy around. It is the evaporation component in the energy budget diagram shown here: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#/media/File
iagram_showing_the_Earth%27s_energy_budget,_which_includes_the_greenhouse_effect_(NASA).png[/url]

As to CO2 being outgassed by the oceans, it is in warmer areas, always has. Absorbed in cooler areas. Overall absorption still, with one effect being slightly lowered pH (toward acidity.)

Fossil fuel burning does explain the increase in atmospheric CO2. Can estimate the amount of fossil fuel burned and then calculate the amount of CO2 produced, easily explains the atmospheric CO2 increase. No other source explains the increase.

"The earth temp has always fluctuated, warm age, ice age and back?"
I don't think paleoclimateologists would say that. During the pleistocene, sure, but not before that. And during the pleistocene the changes were less abrupt than the changes our children and grandchildren are likely to experience.
29-11-2018 20:07
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
still learning wrote:
gerrygerry wrote:
Why is it assumed the rise in temperature "Global warming" is caused by an increase in CO2.........


CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" and the atmospheric concentration has increased from about 285 parts per million (by volume) to about 400 ppm during the past two centuries.

Water vapor is also a "greenhouse gas" and has a greater "greenhouse effect" than CO2 but isn't increasing in atmospheric concentration appreciably. Unlike CO2, water vapor will condense in the atmosphere. It rains liquid water rather than water vapor accumulating indefinitely.

Water vapor does move a lot of energy around. It is the evaporation component in the energy budget diagram shown here: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#/media/File
iagram_showing_the_Earth%27s_energy_budget,_which_includes_the_greenhouse_effect_(NASA).png[/url]

As to CO2 being outgassed by the oceans, it is in warmer areas, always has. Absorbed in cooler areas. Overall absorption still, with one effect being slightly lowered pH (toward acidity.)

Fossil fuel burning does explain the increase in atmospheric CO2. Can estimate the amount of fossil fuel burned and then calculate the amount of CO2 produced, easily explains the atmospheric CO2 increase. No other source explains the increase.

"The earth temp has always fluctuated, warm age, ice age and back?"
I don't think paleoclimateologists would say that. During the pleistocene, sure, but not before that. And during the pleistocene the changes were less abrupt than the changes our children and grandchildren are likely to experience.


CO2 is barely a "greenhouse gas" it only absorbs the energy from a very limited wavelength of energy and this energy is totally absorbed at levels of between 200 and 250 ppm. The Earth can absorb higher frequency light and emit it in the proper wavelength for the three very narrow absorption bands of CO2 but this too is almost immediately absorbed. I estimated that it is absorbed within a foot from the ground whereas another scientist using statistical analysis of how far it is between CO2 molecules estimated 10 feet.

In other words - CO2 is far more controlled by the absorption and re-emission of CO2 by the oceans. But also because of plankton growth, most of the CO2 being generated today is being converted to O2 by plankton.
29-11-2018 20:52
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
gerrygerry wrote:
Why is it assumed the rise in temperature "Global warming" is caused by an increase in CO2.
Not that a rise in atmospheric CO2 is caused by a rise in temperature.
Warming oceans absorb less gasses including CO2.
The earth temp has always fluctuated, warm age, ice age and back?
Also, water vapour is a more potent "greenhouse" gas but always dismissed or never mentioned in the debate. I know it goes thru phase changes, but these are only exchanges of energy, the energy (heat) is still stored in the water.


Heat is not something you can store. You are thinking more along the lines of thermal energy, but it can't be stored either.

It does take more heat to make liquid water change by 1 degree than, say, dry air. This is not storing energy, it is actually using MORE energy to cause a change of 1 degree. This is why hot water scalds so easily, while dry air of that temperature is simply uncomfortable and doesn't scald like that. To cool water off, you have to take all that energy back out again.

Thermal energy is never stored anywhere. There is always heat (which is the movement of thermal energy). Given time, a glass of water will come to room temperature, for example.

Because of the nature of water, oceans can act like a thermal ballast. It takes longer for them to heat up and cool down than it does for air (including the water vapor in it). This is why areas near coastal areas tend to have weather temperature swings that are less than dry desert areas.

Only liquid water and ice have this thermal ballast capability. Water vapor does not. Clouds are liquid water or ice. That's what makes them visible.

None of this means water acts as a 'greenhouse' vapor. It cannot create the extra energy needed to raise the temperature of Earth. It is warmed by the Sun, just as everything else on Earth is. It radiates energy into space, just like everything else on Earth does.

It just takes longer to warm up from sunlight, or cool down by radiating into space. The average stays the the same.


The Parrot Killer
29-11-2018 21:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
still learning wrote:
gerrygerry wrote:
Why is it assumed the rise in temperature "Global warming" is caused by an increase in CO2.........


CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" and the atmospheric concentration has increased from about 285 parts per million (by volume) to about 400 ppm during the past two centuries.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. CO2 is not capable of warming the Earth. You need energy to warm the Earth, and CO2 is not an energy source. You are creating energy out of nothing in violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics.
still learning wrote:
Water vapor is also a "greenhouse gas" and has a greater "greenhouse effect" than CO2 but isn't increasing in atmospheric concentration appreciably. Unlike CO2, water vapor will condense in the atmosphere. It rains liquid water rather than water vapor accumulating indefinitely.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. Water vapor is vapor, it's not even a gas.
still learning wrote:
Water vapor does move a lot of energy around. It is the evaporation component in the energy budget diagram shown here: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#/media/File
iagram_showing_the_Earth%27s_energy_budget,_which_includes_the_greenhouse_effect_(NASA).png[/url]

There is no such thing as an 'energy budget'. What comes in from the Sun goes out into space...always...one way or the other. If and only if the output of the Sun changes, do any time delays in energy being absorbed or radiated into space show up.
still learning wrote:
As to CO2 being outgassed by the oceans, it is in warmer areas, always has. Absorbed in cooler areas. Overall absorption still, with one effect being slightly lowered pH (toward acidity.)

Putting CO2 in water simply dissolves CO2 in water (think of that soda you recently had). Only about 1% of the CO2 turns into carbonic acid. This means only 0.0004% of the ocean water is carbonic acid...not enough to change pH significantly anywhere. pH is not a linear scale. There is no single pH of all ocean water. It varies somewhat from locality to locality.
still learning wrote:
Fossil fuel burning does explain the increase in atmospheric CO2. Can estimate the amount of fossil fuel burned and then calculate the amount of CO2 produced, easily explains the atmospheric CO2 increase. No other source explains the increase.

Fossils don't burn. They don't add any CO2 to the atmosphere. Only carbon based fuels do that. It is not possible to measure where any CO2 in the atmosphere came from. It is also not possible to measure the global CO2 content of the atmosphere. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. The few dozen monitoring stations (like Mauna Loa) are not enough to measure global content. Mauna Loa itself has been caught publishing cooked data, not raw data. It's useless.
still learning wrote:
"The earth temp has always fluctuated, warm age, ice age and back?"
I don't think paleoclimateologists would say that. During the pleistocene, sure, but not before that. And during the pleistocene the changes were less abrupt than the changes our children and grandchildren are likely to experience.

Speculation. You're guessing.


The Parrot Killer
29-11-2018 21:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Wake wrote:
still learning wrote:
gerrygerry wrote:
Why is it assumed the rise in temperature "Global warming" is caused by an increase in CO2.........


CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" and the atmospheric concentration has increased from about 285 parts per million (by volume) to about 400 ppm during the past two centuries.

Water vapor is also a "greenhouse gas" and has a greater "greenhouse effect" than CO2 but isn't increasing in atmospheric concentration appreciably. Unlike CO2, water vapor will condense in the atmosphere. It rains liquid water rather than water vapor accumulating indefinitely.

Water vapor does move a lot of energy around. It is the evaporation component in the energy budget diagram shown here: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#/media/File
iagram_showing_the_Earth%27s_energy_budget,_which_includes_the_greenhouse_effect_(NASA).png[/url]

As to CO2 being outgassed by the oceans, it is in warmer areas, always has. Absorbed in cooler areas. Overall absorption still, with one effect being slightly lowered pH (toward acidity.)

Fossil fuel burning does explain the increase in atmospheric CO2. Can estimate the amount of fossil fuel burned and then calculate the amount of CO2 produced, easily explains the atmospheric CO2 increase. No other source explains the increase.

"The earth temp has always fluctuated, warm age, ice age and back?"
I don't think paleoclimateologists would say that. During the pleistocene, sure, but not before that. And during the pleistocene the changes were less abrupt than the changes our children and grandchildren are likely to experience.


CO2 is barely a "greenhouse gas"

It is not at all, Wake. CO2 has NO capability to warm the Earth. Here again you show your membership in the Church of Global Warming.
Wake wrote:
it only absorbs the energy from a very limited wavelength of energy and this energy is totally absorbed at levels of between 200 and 250 ppm.
Absorption does not warm the Earth, Wake.
Wake wrote:
The Earth can absorb higher frequency light
Not all light results in a temperature increase, Wake. Earth is warmed primarily by infrared light from the Sun. That is the largest amount of light coming from the Sun.
Wake wrote:
and emit it in the proper wavelength for the three very narrow absorption bands of CO2 but this too is almost immediately absorbed.
Making no difference. Did you know that emitting light cools the land, Wake. This is nothing more than just another way for the hot land to heat the cooler air.
Wake wrote:
I estimated that it is absorbed within a foot from the ground whereas another scientist using statistical analysis of how far it is between CO2 molecules estimated 10 feet.

Irrelevant.
Wake wrote:
In other words - CO2 is far more controlled by the absorption and re-emission of CO2 by the oceans. But also because of plankton growth, most of the CO2 being generated today is being converted to O2 by plankton.

Irrelevant.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 29-11-2018 21:13
30-11-2018 01:41
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
still learning wrote:
gerrygerry wrote:
Why is it assumed the rise in temperature "Global warming" is caused by an increase in CO2.........


CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" and the atmospheric concentration has increased from about 285 parts per million (by volume) to about 400 ppm during the past two centuries.

Water vapor is also a "greenhouse gas" and has a greater "greenhouse effect" than CO2 but isn't increasing in atmospheric concentration appreciably. Unlike CO2, water vapor will condense in the atmosphere. It rains liquid water rather than water vapor accumulating indefinitely.

Water vapor does move a lot of energy around. It is the evaporation component in the energy budget diagram shown here: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#/media/File
iagram_showing_the_Earth%27s_energy_budget,_which_includes_the_greenhouse_effect_(NASA).png[/url]

As to CO2 being outgassed by the oceans, it is in warmer areas, always has. Absorbed in cooler areas. Overall absorption still, with one effect being slightly lowered pH (toward acidity.)

Fossil fuel burning does explain the increase in atmospheric CO2. Can estimate the amount of fossil fuel burned and then calculate the amount of CO2 produced, easily explains the atmospheric CO2 increase. No other source explains the increase.

"The earth temp has always fluctuated, warm age, ice age and back?"
I don't think paleoclimateologists would say that. During the pleistocene, sure, but not before that. And during the pleistocene the changes were less abrupt than the changes our children and grandchildren are likely to experience.


CO2 is barely a "greenhouse gas"

It is not at all, Wake. CO2 has NO capability to warm the Earth. Here again you show your membership in the Church of Global Warming.
Wake wrote:
it only absorbs the energy from a very limited wavelength of energy and this energy is totally absorbed at levels of between 200 and 250 ppm.
Absorption does not warm the Earth, Wake.
Wake wrote:
The Earth can absorb higher frequency light
Not all light results in a temperature increase, Wake. Earth is warmed primarily by infrared light from the Sun. That is the largest amount of light coming from the Sun.
Wake wrote:
and emit it in the proper wavelength for the three very narrow absorption bands of CO2 but this too is almost immediately absorbed.
Making no difference. Did you know that emitting light cools the land, Wake. This is nothing more than just another way for the hot land to heat the cooler air.
Wake wrote:
I estimated that it is absorbed within a foot from the ground whereas another scientist using statistical analysis of how far it is between CO2 molecules estimated 10 feet.

Irrelevant.
Wake wrote:
In other words - CO2 is far more controlled by the absorption and re-emission of CO2 by the oceans. But also because of plankton growth, most of the CO2 being generated today is being converted to O2 by plankton.

Irrelevant.


And there again you show your propensity of talking about things you know nothing about.
30-11-2018 02:03
EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE
☆☆☆☆☆
(4)
Hi everyone.. pretty interesting debates here. The usage of fossil fuel in the humans daily life and the increase of the human population like we have it now and shockingly how it is going to be is a big problem. Not only does burning fossi fuel create CO2 andH2O. We poison our soil with fracking and acid rain, we cover our beautiful and unique planet in microplastic. And greenhouse gases like H2O and CO2 do not only absorb light. White light is a combination of lights with different wave lenghts. Some of them are being absorbed others reflected what is also the reason why we see colors. The greenhouse gases trap light between surface and atmosphere which is being absorbed and reflected again and again like you throw a bouncing ball very hard in a very small in a small room.
Climate changes were, are and will always be part of our planet but in is now on us how bad and how fast it is going to happen. We all have to work hard to find a way to hold that many people and conservate and protect our environment and planet!
30-11-2018 02:28
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE wrote:
Hi everyone.. pretty interesting debates here. The usage of fossil fuel in the humans daily life and the increase of the human population like we have it now and shockingly how it is going to be is a big problem. Not only does burning fossi fuel create CO2 andH2O. We poison our soil with fracking and acid rain, we cover our beautiful and unique planet in microplastic. And greenhouse gases like H2O and CO2 do not only absorb light. White light is a combination of lights with different wave lenghts. Some of them are being absorbed others reflected what is also the reason why we see colors. The greenhouse gases trap light between surface and atmosphere which is being absorbed and reflected again and again like you throw a bouncing ball very hard in a very small in a small room.
Climate changes were, are and will always be part of our planet but in is now on us how bad and how fast it is going to happen. We all have to work hard to find a way to hold that many people and conservate and protect our environment and planet!


The planet surface is 4/5 water, our bodies are about 80% water, water vapor makes up between 0 and 4% of the atmosphere. Not much we can do about water, even less, without it. CO2 makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere, about 400 ppm. Plants really like 1200 ppm of CO2 in a greenhouse environment, 3 times what we currently have on hand for them. Plants are the basic food source for most everything living, in one way or another. We'd do the planet good, by feeding the plants more CO2.

CO2 isn't a layer, nor is it evenly distributed. All the gasses in the atmosphere are in constant motion. Temperature and pressure are two factors that move the gasses, different rates an directions for each. Measurements are local, and sort of an average, not really global or precise, just the best we have to work with, some people like to expand the value of these numbers.

I do agree that we should be cleaner, less wasteful, it's the only home we have. Unfortunately, it takes respect, something that hasn't been taught, or reinforced for many years...
30-11-2018 05:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE wrote:
Hi everyone.. pretty interesting debates here.

Welcome. Some debates can get fairly spirited here. The software running this forum is also very nice. Branner does a good job.
EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE wrote:
The usage of fossil fuel in the humans daily life and the increase of the human population like we have it now and shockingly how it is going to be is a big problem. Not only does burning fossi fuel create CO2 andH2O.

I assume you mean carbon based fuels. Fossils don't burn. Coal, oil, and natural gas are not fossils nor do they come from fossils.

CO2 and H2O is okay. There is really nothing dangerous about these chemicals. Life wouldn't be possible without either of them.

Neither can cause the Earth to warm, other than the usual absorbing energy from sunlight.

EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE wrote:
We poison our soil with fracking

Fracking is thousands of years old. It is simply the technique of using hydraulic pressure to crack rock. The Chinese were to first to use the technique (not drilling for oil with it -- in warfare to bust up fortifications).

Fracking takes place below the soil layer. The chemicals used are pretty benign...basically sand and lubricants. The lubricants came out of the ground in the first place.
EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE wrote:
and acid rain,

Not a problem in the United States anymore, thanks to sulfur capture systems in smokestacks today.
EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE wrote:
we cover our beautiful and unique planet in microplastic.

We don't have enough microplastic to do that.
EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE wrote:
And greenhouse gases like H2O and CO2 do not only absorb light. White light is a combination of lights with different wave lenghts. Some of them are being absorbed others reflected what is also the reason why we see colors. The greenhouse gases trap light between surface and atmosphere which is being absorbed and reflected again and again like you throw a bouncing ball very hard in a very small in a small room.

No matter how hard you throw the ball or how bouncy it is, it will never come back from the bounce as hard as when you threw it. It is not possible to trap light. It is also not possible to reduce the radiance of earth and increase its temperature at the same time. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE wrote:
Climate changes were, are and will always be part of our planet but in is now on us how bad and how fast it is going to happen. We all have to work hard to find a way to hold that many people and conservate and protect our environment and planet!

The very phrase 'climate change' is meaningless. There is no such thing as a global climate, as there is no such thing as a global weather. Climate is usually defined something similar to 'weather over a long time'. A 'long time' is not specified. To describe a 'change' one must use two fixed points in time. The importance of those points must be justified, and the unimportance of any other two fixed points must also be justified.

That said, yes...taking care of our home is important. We live here. No one likes to live in their own filth (well...some do). There are good ways and bad ways to care for the environment. Turning the economy upside down is not the way. Allowing capitalism to develop newer, better, more efficient cars and factories is the way. Designing and installing systems to reduce our waste or to recycle it into something useful is a good way. People are already doing that. Turns out there's good money to be made in it.

Capitalism works.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 30-11-2018 05:57
30-11-2018 06:32
EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE
☆☆☆☆☆
(4)
I was raised in Austria right at the boarder to Switzerland between the austrian and swiss alps. Of course hiking and being in the mountains is a big hobby of mine since I was 5 years old. One of my most favorite spots is the "Ochsentaler glacier" in the austrian alps. It said that people have been going up that glacier for probably thousand years. By the end of the 19th century the tongue went back 600 meters and since then over 2000 meters. 50% of the glacier surfaces in the alps are gone! I could almost watch the glaciers ablation. North italy is probably going to be the first who is running out of freshwater because the most reliable supplier will be gone after thousands of years! Things are changing and it is as real as it can be! We can ignore and learn how humans like to learn.. after something catasrtophic happens or we can realize that only the perfect balance between industry and conservation is going to be the answer. Of course do we also need CO2 in our atmosphere as it is part of the natural greenhouse gases. The per head CO2 emissions in economically strong countrys are going over the roof. If it doesn't matter how must CO2 or fine particulars we blow in our atmosphere then Beijing most have absolutly perfect breathable air at all times. Or you should be able to buy fresh water fish in the stores in Northeastern USA. Our plants can only do so much.
30-11-2018 11:36
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1260)
EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE wrote:
Hi everyone.. pretty interesting debates here. The usage of fossil fuel in the humans daily life and the increase of the human population like we have it now and shockingly how it is going to be is a big problem. Not only does burning fossi fuel create CO2 andH2O. We poison our soil with fracking and acid rain, we cover our beautiful and unique planet in microplastic. And greenhouse gases like H2O and CO2 do not only absorb light. White light is a combination of lights with different wave lenghts. Some of them are being absorbed others reflected what is also the reason why we see colors. The greenhouse gases trap light between surface and atmosphere which is being absorbed and reflected again and again like you throw a bouncing ball very hard in a very small in a small room.
Climate changes were, are and will always be part of our planet but in is now on us how bad and how fast it is going to happen. We all have to work hard to find a way to hold that many people and conservate and protect our environment and planet!


Get a grip.

H2O, water, falls out of the air as rain. The air holds as much as it can at any time.

Whilst there are lots of environmetal troubles which require attention and sorting out you do need to understand how stuff works in a science way to be part of the debate. If you flunked science at school you jsut have to be a spectator for most of it.

The heat we build up during the day goes away into space at night to get to the temperature at dawn. Heat does not bounce around for ever.

CO2 is being hyped as this monster.

It is not.

The maximum case sceanarios, as put out by the IPCC, show a warming that is slight. Most of the time since the last ice age, during this current interglacial, has been warmer.

https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1365-2745.13077

Warmer times have been better. More plant growth, more life. Cold times are when we have had the worst of times.

CO2 is plant food. The more there is the better the plants can grow. It is not toxic untill you get to extremely high levels. The CO2 level in the room you are in is way higher than the air outside in the wind will ever be unless you are down wind of a fire.
30-11-2018 18:05
EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE
☆☆☆☆☆
(4)
Into the Night wrote:
EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE wrote:
Hi everyone.. pretty interesting debates here.

Welcome. Some debates can get fairly spirited here. The software running this forum is also very nice. Branner does a good job.
EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE wrote:
The usage of fossil fuel in the humans daily life and the increase of the human population like we have it now and shockingly how it is going to be is a big problem. Not only does burning fossi fuel create CO2 andH2O.

I assume you mean carbon based fuels. Fossils don't burn. Coal, oil, and natural gas are not fossils nor do they come from fossils.

CO2 and H2O is okay. There is really nothing dangerous about these chemicals. Life wouldn't be possible without either of them.

Neither can cause the Earth to warm, other than the usual absorbing energy from sunlight.

EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE wrote:
We poison our soil with fracking

Fracking is thousands of years old. It is simply the technique of using hydraulic pressure to crack rock. The Chinese were to first to use the technique (not drilling for oil with it -- in warfare to bust up fortifications).

Fracking takes place below the soil layer. The chemicals used are pretty benign...basically sand and lubricants. The lubricants came out of the ground in the first place.
EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE wrote:
and acid rain,

Not a problem in the United States anymore, thanks to sulfur capture systems in smokestacks today.
EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE wrote:
we cover our beautiful and unique planet in microplastic.

We don't have enough microplastic to do that.
EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE wrote:
And greenhouse gases like H2O and CO2 do not only absorb light. White light is a combination of lights with different wave lenghts. Some of them are being absorbed others reflected what is also the reason why we see colors. The greenhouse gases trap light between surface and atmosphere which is being absorbed and reflected again and again like you throw a bouncing ball very hard in a very small in a small room.

No matter how hard you throw the ball or how bouncy it is, it will never come back from the bounce as hard as when you threw it. It is not possible to trap light. It is also not possible to reduce the radiance of earth and increase its temperature at the same time. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE wrote:
Climate changes were, are and will always be part of our planet but in is now on us how bad and how fast it is going to happen. We all have to work hard to find a way to hold that many people and conservate and protect our environment and planet!

The very phrase 'climate change' is meaningless. There is no such thing as a global climate, as there is no such thing as a global weather. Climate is usually defined something similar to 'weather over a long time'. A 'long time' is not specified. To describe a 'change' one must use two fixed points in time. The importance of those points must be justified, and the unimportance of any other two fixed points must also be justified.

That said, yes...taking care of our home is important. We live here. No one likes to live in their own filth (well...some do). There are good ways and bad ways to care for the environment. Turning the economy upside down is not the way. Allowing capitalism to develop newer, better, more efficient cars and factories is the way. Designing and installing systems to reduce our waste or to recycle it into something useful is a good way. People are already doing that. Turns out there's good money to be made in it.

Capitalism works.


Into the Night wrote:
EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE wrote:
Hi everyone.. pretty interesting debates here.

Welcome. Some debates can get fairly spirited here. The software running this forum is also very nice. Branner does a good job.
EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE wrote:
The usage of fossil fuel in the humans daily life and the increase of the human population like we have it now and shockingly how it is going to be is a big problem. Not only does burning fossi fuel create CO2 andH2O.

I assume you mean carbon based fuels. Fossils don't burn. Coal, oil, and natural gas are not fossils nor do they come from fossils.

CO2 and H2O is okay. There is really nothing dangerous about these chemicals. Life wouldn't be possible without either of them.

Neither can cause the Earth to warm, other than the usual absorbing energy from sunlight.

EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE wrote:
We poison our soil with fracking

Fracking is thousands of years old. It is simply the technique of using hydraulic pressure to crack rock. The Chinese were to first to use the technique (not drilling for oil with it -- in warfare to bust up fortifications).

Fracking takes place below the soil layer. The chemicals used are pretty benign...basically sand and lubricants. The lubricants came out of the ground in the first place.
EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE wrote:
and acid rain,

Not a problem in the United States anymore, thanks to sulfur capture systems in smokestacks today.
EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE wrote:
we cover our beautiful and unique planet in microplastic.

We don't have enough microplastic to do that.
EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE wrote:
And greenhouse gases like H2O and CO2 do not only absorb light. White light is a combination of lights with different wave lenghts. Some of them are being absorbed others reflected what is also the reason why we see colors. The greenhouse gases trap light between surface and atmosphere which is being absorbed and reflected again and again like you throw a bouncing ball very hard in a very small in a small room.

No matter how hard you throw the ball or how bouncy it is, it will never come back from the bounce as hard as when you threw it. It is not possible to trap light. It is also not possible to reduce the radiance of earth and increase its temperature at the same time. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE wrote:
Climate changes were, are and will always be part of our planet but in is now on us how bad and how fast it is going to happen. We all have to work hard to find a way to hold that many people and conservate and protect our environment and planet!

The very phrase 'climate change' is meaningless. There is no such thing as a global climate, as there is no such thing as a global weather. Climate is usually defined something similar to 'weather over a long time'. A 'long time' is not specified. To describe a 'change' one must use two fixed points in time. The importance of those points must be justified, and the unimportance of any other two fixed points must also be justified.

That said, yes...taking care of our home is important. We live here. No one likes to live in their own filth (well...some do). There are good ways and bad ways to care for the environment. Turning the economy upside down is not the way. Allowing capitalism to develop newer, better, more efficient cars and factories is the way. Designing and installing systems to reduce our waste or to recycle it into something useful is a good way. People are already doing that. Turns out there's good money to be made in it.

Capitalism works.


Climate change can never be meaningless if you look at the effects of the past ones. Drastic climate changes will always have a deep impact to the environment of our planet if it doesn't have enough time to adjust. So time is one of the problems...it depends on how much change is happening in what kind of time. 100 years seems to be a long time from the perspectiv of a human... but it is not for the environment. And there comes one of the issues... the human is not capable of thinking ahead 100 years... not if he is too busy to make sure that himself and maybe the next generation has all the comforts he think it needs! Only a few percentage of the humans can think further ahead and all those people who do.. know exactly what I am talking about!
The change is a permanent natural process that is right but it is very easy to manipulate. It doesn't take much for the planet to change its average global temperatur. A little change in one of the many components that are responsible for the temperaturs on our planet can change everything.
30-11-2018 19:12
HarveyH55
★☆☆☆☆
(104)
The temperature increase prophesied, is only a few degrees, over a hundred years, it's been hotter in the past. Plants and wildlife survive extreme conditions just fine. The glacier ice is melting, and has been for a very long time, hold over from the ice age. Don't know why it's so shocking, many glaciers melted a long time ago, surprising some lasted this long.

I really don't know why global temperature rising ever became an interest, been warming up since the ice age, still got a ways to go. The change hasn't been all that rapid, least not to get attention. Then, it got paired up with CO2, man-made CO2 specifically, not the natural occurring CO2. Doubt I'll ever understand the difference between the two... The man-made CO2, can be the only cause/cure, for a naturally occurring atmospheric process, that's been going on, long before we started burning anything. The thought that one molecule, that makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere, won't bother with all the zeros, for including the entire planet, could have such complete control over our whether, is crazy. For so many, 'smart' people believing it, is pure insanity. We are being decieved.
30-11-2018 19:20
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE wrote:
Hi everyone.. pretty interesting debates here.

Welcome. Some debates can get fairly spirited here. The software running this forum is also very nice. Branner does a good job.
EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE wrote:
The usage of fossil fuel in the humans daily life and the increase of the human population like we have it now and shockingly how it is going to be is a big problem. Not only does burning fossi fuel create CO2 andH2O.

I assume you mean carbon based fuels. Fossils don't burn. Coal, oil, and natural gas are not fossils nor do they come from fossils.

CO2 and H2O is okay. There is really nothing dangerous about these chemicals. Life wouldn't be possible without either of them.

Neither can cause the Earth to warm, other than the usual absorbing energy from sunlight.

EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE wrote:
We poison our soil with fracking

Fracking is thousands of years old. It is simply the technique of using hydraulic pressure to crack rock. The Chinese were to first to use the technique (not drilling for oil with it -- in warfare to bust up fortifications).

Fracking takes place below the soil layer. The chemicals used are pretty benign...basically sand and lubricants. The lubricants came out of the ground in the first place.
EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE wrote:
and acid rain,

Not a problem in the United States anymore, thanks to sulfur capture systems in smokestacks today.
EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE wrote:
we cover our beautiful and unique planet in microplastic.

We don't have enough microplastic to do that.
EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE wrote:
And greenhouse gases like H2O and CO2 do not only absorb light. White light is a combination of lights with different wave lenghts. Some of them are being absorbed others reflected what is also the reason why we see colors. The greenhouse gases trap light between surface and atmosphere which is being absorbed and reflected again and again like you throw a bouncing ball very hard in a very small in a small room.

No matter how hard you throw the ball or how bouncy it is, it will never come back from the bounce as hard as when you threw it. It is not possible to trap light. It is also not possible to reduce the radiance of earth and increase its temperature at the same time. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE wrote:
Climate changes were, are and will always be part of our planet but in is now on us how bad and how fast it is going to happen. We all have to work hard to find a way to hold that many people and conservate and protect our environment and planet!

The very phrase 'climate change' is meaningless. There is no such thing as a global climate, as there is no such thing as a global weather. Climate is usually defined something similar to 'weather over a long time'. A 'long time' is not specified. To describe a 'change' one must use two fixed points in time. The importance of those points must be justified, and the unimportance of any other two fixed points must also be justified.

That said, yes...taking care of our home is important. We live here. No one likes to live in their own filth (well...some do). There are good ways and bad ways to care for the environment. Turning the economy upside down is not the way. Allowing capitalism to develop newer, better, more efficient cars and factories is the way. Designing and installing systems to reduce our waste or to recycle it into something useful is a good way. People are already doing that. Turns out there's good money to be made in it.

Capitalism works.


Into the Night wrote:
EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE wrote:
Hi everyone.. pretty interesting debates here.

Welcome. Some debates can get fairly spirited here. The software running this forum is also very nice. Branner does a good job.
EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE wrote:
The usage of fossil fuel in the humans daily life and the increase of the human population like we have it now and shockingly how it is going to be is a big problem. Not only does burning fossi fuel create CO2 andH2O.

I assume you mean carbon based fuels. Fossils don't burn. Coal, oil, and natural gas are not fossils nor do they come from fossils.

CO2 and H2O is okay. There is really nothing dangerous about these chemicals. Life wouldn't be possible without either of them.

Neither can cause the Earth to warm, other than the usual absorbing energy from sunlight.

EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE wrote:
We poison our soil with fracking

Fracking is thousands of years old. It is simply the technique of using hydraulic pressure to crack rock. The Chinese were to first to use the technique (not drilling for oil with it -- in warfare to bust up fortifications).

Fracking takes place below the soil layer. The chemicals used are pretty benign...basically sand and lubricants. The lubricants came out of the ground in the first place.
EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE wrote:
and acid rain,

Not a problem in the United States anymore, thanks to sulfur capture systems in smokestacks today.
EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE wrote:
we cover our beautiful and unique planet in microplastic.

We don't have enough microplastic to do that.
EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE wrote:
And greenhouse gases like H2O and CO2 do not only absorb light. White light is a combination of lights with different wave lenghts. Some of them are being absorbed others reflected what is also the reason why we see colors. The greenhouse gases trap light between surface and atmosphere which is being absorbed and reflected again and again like you throw a bouncing ball very hard in a very small in a small room.

No matter how hard you throw the ball or how bouncy it is, it will never come back from the bounce as hard as when you threw it. It is not possible to trap light. It is also not possible to reduce the radiance of earth and increase its temperature at the same time. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE wrote:
Climate changes were, are and will always be part of our planet but in is now on us how bad and how fast it is going to happen. We all have to work hard to find a way to hold that many people and conservate and protect our environment and planet!

The very phrase 'climate change' is meaningless. There is no such thing as a global climate, as there is no such thing as a global weather. Climate is usually defined something similar to 'weather over a long time'. A 'long time' is not specified. To describe a 'change' one must use two fixed points in time. The importance of those points must be justified, and the unimportance of any other two fixed points must also be justified.

That said, yes...taking care of our home is important. We live here. No one likes to live in their own filth (well...some do). There are good ways and bad ways to care for the environment. Turning the economy upside down is not the way. Allowing capitalism to develop newer, better, more efficient cars and factories is the way. Designing and installing systems to reduce our waste or to recycle it into something useful is a good way. People are already doing that. Turns out there's good money to be made in it.

Capitalism works.


Climate change can never be meaningless if you look at the effects of the past ones. Drastic climate changes will always have a deep impact to the environment of our planet if it doesn't have enough time to adjust. So time is one of the problems...it depends on how much change is happening in what kind of time. 100 years seems to be a long time from the perspectiv of a human... but it is not for the environment. And there comes one of the issues... the human is not capable of thinking ahead 100 years... not if he is too busy to make sure that himself and maybe the next generation has all the comforts he think it needs! Only a few percentage of the humans can think further ahead and all those people who do.. know exactly what I am talking about!
The change is a permanent natural process that is right but it is very easy to manipulate. It doesn't take much for the planet to change its average global temperatur. A little change in one of the many components that are responsible for the temperatures on our planet can change everything.


When do you think there has been drastic climate change and how often to you believe it occurs?

There was some sort of article on Google today that was saying that someone had published a scientific paper about the likelihood of another ice age. Like everything on Google they got it all wrong and instead of using the original paper they used blogs about it. The final statement was something like - cooling in the upper atmosphere doesn't have any effect on surface temperatures.

Since there was NOTHING on the original Russian paper and only a complete misunderstanding of the NASA paper this is the sort of thing that the Global Warmies thrive on.

No, the signs aren't for a very cold winter starting a little ice age now. It is for a predicted minimum of sunspots around 2050 +/- 11 years. While sunspots indeed warm the upper atmosphere this does have an effect on surface temperatures though perhaps minimal.

However, this also means that the temperature on the surface of the sun drops giving the Earth a reduced output of solar energy which most assuredly DOES effect surface temperatures.

The Russians appear to have decoded this long term sunspot cycle and used it to "predict" the previous cold periods successfully. NASA has checked their predictions and agreed that it appears to be accurate. This is mathematics driven science and while there may be factors they are unaware of, as of now the prediction for a coming Little Ice Age should be seriously considered as likely.
30-11-2018 20:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE wrote:
I was raised in Austria right at the boarder to Switzerland between the austrian and swiss alps. Of course hiking and being in the mountains is a big hobby of mine since I was 5 years old. One of my most favorite spots is the "Ochsentaler glacier" in the austrian alps. It said that people have been going up that glacier for probably thousand years. By the end of the 19th century the tongue went back 600 meters and since then over 2000 meters. 50% of the glacier surfaces in the alps are gone! I could almost watch the glaciers ablation. North italy is probably going to be the first who is running out of freshwater because the most reliable supplier will be gone after thousands of years! Things are changing and it is as real as it can be! We can ignore and learn how humans like to learn.. after something catasrtophic happens or we can realize that only the perfect balance between industry and conservation is going to be the answer. Of course do we also need CO2 in our atmosphere as it is part of the natural greenhouse gases. The per head CO2 emissions in economically strong countrys are going over the roof. If it doesn't matter how must CO2 or fine particulars we blow in our atmosphere then Beijing most have absolutly perfect breathable air at all times. Or you should be able to buy fresh water fish in the stores in Northeastern USA. Our plants can only do so much.


We also have glaciers here in Washington. Several have been expanding, others have been receding. Be aware that anecdotal stories about glaciers have no meaning to the world's ice content (which can't be measured).

Glaciers advance and retreat for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is less or greater precipitation in the snow fields feeding the glacier.


The Parrot Killer
30-11-2018 20:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE wrote:
Climate change can never be meaningless if you look at the effects of the past ones.

What past ones? A past meaningless buzzword is the same as the buzzword itself.
EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE wrote:
Drastic climate changes will always have a deep impact to the environment of our planet if it doesn't have enough time to adjust.
Now it's a drastic meaningless buzzword?
EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE wrote:
So time is one of the problems...it depends on how much change is happening in what kind of time.

So time has something to do with this meaingless buzzword? Did you know that climate itself already contains the element of time, and that it's unspecified?
EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE wrote:
100 years seems to be a long time from the perspectiv of a human... but it is not for the environment. And there comes one of the issues... the human is not capable of thinking ahead 100 years... not if he is too busy to make sure that himself and maybe the next generation has all the comforts he think it needs! Only a few percentage of the humans can think further ahead and all those people who do.

Why is 100 years significant? Why is any other time interval not significant?
EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE wrote:
. know exactly what I am talking about!
The change is a permanent natural process that is right but it is very easy to manipulate.
What 'change'? Void argument fallacy.
EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE wrote:
It doesn't take much for the planet to change its average global temperatur.
A little change in one of the many components that are responsible for the temperaturs on our planet can change everything.

To change the global temperature of the planet only requires two factors:
1) change the output of the Sun.
2) change the distance from the Earth to the Sun.

That's it. That's the only place you can the extra energy from. CO2 is not a source of energy. You can't create energy out of nothing.


The Parrot Killer
30-11-2018 20:51
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
HarveyH55 wrote:
The temperature increase prophesied, is only a few degrees, over a hundred years, it's been hotter in the past. Plants and wildlife survive extreme conditions just fine. The glacier ice is melting, and has been for a very long time, hold over from the ice age. Don't know why it's so shocking, many glaciers melted a long time ago, surprising some lasted this long.

I really don't know why global temperature rising ever became an interest, been warming up since the ice age, still got a ways to go. The change hasn't been all that rapid, least not to get attention. Then, it got paired up with CO2, man-made CO2 specifically, not the natural occurring CO2. Doubt I'll ever understand the difference between the two... The man-made CO2, can be the only cause/cure, for a naturally occurring atmospheric process, that's been going on, long before we started burning anything. The thought that one molecule, that makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere, won't bother with all the zeros, for including the entire planet, could have such complete control over our whether, is crazy. For so many, 'smart' people believing it, is pure insanity. We are being decieved.


'Prophecy' is exactly the right word to use here. The Church of Global Warming is a false prophecy. It denies science. It denies mathematics.


The Parrot Killer
01-12-2018 05:09
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
The temperature increase prophesied, is only a few degrees, over a hundred years, it's been hotter in the past. Plants and wildlife survive extreme conditions just fine. The glacier ice is melting, and has been for a very long time, hold over from the ice age. Don't know why it's so shocking, many glaciers melted a long time ago, surprising some lasted this long.

I really don't know why global temperature rising ever became an interest, been warming up since the ice age, still got a ways to go. The change hasn't been all that rapid, least not to get attention. Then, it got paired up with CO2, man-made CO2 specifically, not the natural occurring CO2. Doubt I'll ever understand the difference between the two... The man-made CO2, can be the only cause/cure, for a naturally occurring atmospheric process, that's been going on, long before we started burning anything. The thought that one molecule, that makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere, won't bother with all the zeros, for including the entire planet, could have such complete control over our whether, is crazy. For so many, 'smart' people believing it, is pure insanity. We are being decieved.


'Prophecy' is exactly the right word to use here. The Church of Global Warming is a false prophecy. It denies science. It denies mathematics.


I posted some math for you to consider and not one peep out of you. Sooo, are you the Pope of the Church of Logic? The last I heard is that you only accept the truth of your own falsified logic.
What is it you say? In itn I believe?
01-12-2018 20:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
The temperature increase prophesied, is only a few degrees, over a hundred years, it's been hotter in the past. Plants and wildlife survive extreme conditions just fine. The glacier ice is melting, and has been for a very long time, hold over from the ice age. Don't know why it's so shocking, many glaciers melted a long time ago, surprising some lasted this long.

I really don't know why global temperature rising ever became an interest, been warming up since the ice age, still got a ways to go. The change hasn't been all that rapid, least not to get attention. Then, it got paired up with CO2, man-made CO2 specifically, not the natural occurring CO2. Doubt I'll ever understand the difference between the two... The man-made CO2, can be the only cause/cure, for a naturally occurring atmospheric process, that's been going on, long before we started burning anything. The thought that one molecule, that makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere, won't bother with all the zeros, for including the entire planet, could have such complete control over our whether, is crazy. For so many, 'smart' people believing it, is pure insanity. We are being decieved.


'Prophecy' is exactly the right word to use here. The Church of Global Warming is a false prophecy. It denies science. It denies mathematics.


I posted some math for you to consider and not one peep out of you.

You posted some random equations that have no meaning. What do you want me to say?
James___ wrote:
Sooo, are you the Pope of the Church of Logic?
Logic isn't a religion.
James___ wrote:
The last I heard is that you only accept the truth of your own falsified logic.

Logic can't be falsified.


The Parrot Killer
01-12-2018 20:27
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
The temperature increase prophesied, is only a few degrees, over a hundred years, it's been hotter in the past. Plants and wildlife survive extreme conditions just fine. The glacier ice is melting, and has been for a very long time, hold over from the ice age. Don't know why it's so shocking, many glaciers melted a long time ago, surprising some lasted this long.

I really don't know why global temperature rising ever became an interest, been warming up since the ice age, still got a ways to go. The change hasn't been all that rapid, least not to get attention. Then, it got paired up with CO2, man-made CO2 specifically, not the natural occurring CO2. Doubt I'll ever understand the difference between the two... The man-made CO2, can be the only cause/cure, for a naturally occurring atmospheric process, that's been going on, long before we started burning anything. The thought that one molecule, that makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere, won't bother with all the zeros, for including the entire planet, could have such complete control over our whether, is crazy. For so many, 'smart' people believing it, is pure insanity. We are being decieved.


'Prophecy' is exactly the right word to use here. The Church of Global Warming is a false prophecy. It denies science. It denies mathematics.


I posted some math for you to consider and not one peep out of you.

You posted some random equations that have no meaning. What do you want me to say?
James___ wrote:
Sooo, are you the Pope of the Church of Logic?
Logic isn't a religion.
James___ wrote:
The last I heard is that you only accept the truth of your own falsified logic.

Logic can't be falsified.


It's only logical. What a wanker.




Join the debate Cause and effect:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Why the greenhouse effect does not violate the first law of thermodynamics35509-01-2018 15:22
Michael Mann The Madhouse Effect: Climate Change Denial in the Age of Trump016-11-2017 19:59
What is the Greenhouse Effect?16615-09-2017 00:18
Greenhouse Effect is Real1710-09-2017 19:16
Greenhouse Effect and the 1909 Wood's Experiment12128-08-2017 22:34
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact