Global Warming

[NBVegita]

Sever that is what I've been trying to say. First off the industrial revolution did not start 300 years ago, well it was in infancy, but the production of CO2 didn't really go into effect until the early to mid 1800's.

 

Second, is that of that 34% increase in CO2, even today, where emissions are very high we only contribute ~3% of the CO2 to the atmosphere. Now I will say that us doing our massive logging did have an effect of the natural CO2 not having as big of a source to absorb it, but the point is that our effect even today is minimal to global warming. Again I've stated that I want to preserve trees, and increase national parks, doing this would give a decrease in CO2. I mean just since 2000, the US has cut down 105 million trees, just for the magazine industry. Each tree on an average absorbs 3 kg of CO2 in a year. 105 X 3 = 315 million kgs of CO2 each year. Just from magazines! Imagine how many trillions of trees we have cut down over the past century? Say we've cut down even 10 trillion trees. That is 30 trillion tons of CO2 that can't be absorbed, or in reference to what we have been talking about, 30 Billion tons of CO2 that has not been able to be absorbed. That is a much dire issue than worrying about spending billions to lower our emissions from 6 billion tons a year to 5.9 billion tons a year. Spend those billions on making national parks that cannot be touched.

 

Our logging has had a much more drastic effect on the greenhouse effect than our emissions ever will, but all the politicians keep pushing emissions so they can get their grant money.

 

But with the values I showed how trivial the statement is.

Edited April 9, 2007 by NBVegita

[PoLiX]

The Republicans really need a good candidate. I'm not even paying attention to the elections right now until things get organized and people say they ARE or ARE NOT running for 100%.

 

Onto the global warming chit chat... funny thing I read the other day, I'll try to dig link up. They did a study of from factory to death of cars, and found the new Hybrids are polluting the earth way more than 3 fully loaded Hummers. Mostly has to do with what they are made of, and running on, but I found it kind of interesting to read.

 

http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/e....asp?NewsID=188

[SeVeR]

Any democrat apart from Clinton would do. There isn't much to say because the news media hasn't told us what to think yet.

 

You didn't give me any sources NBV, i still think you've mismatched those stats. Saying that we've had a 34% rise in CO2 in the last three hundred years and that we're only responsible for 3% of it just seems like crazy talk to me.

 

I didn't get us started on this global warming crap... someone started talking about Gore, then someone brought up the environment and then it all kicked off from there.

Edited April 9, 2007 by SeVeR

[Falcoknight]

If mods could like.. Move the posts regarding Global Warming to a new thread I would like it a lot. Not because I care that they derailed this thread, but because I'm really interested in the subject and am interested to see what both sides have to say in an organized topic devoted to the subject =)

[NBVegita]

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

 

A very good source. He cites all of his sources, and if you research him is research is quite credible.

 

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

 

Also a very well cited source. You can trace all of his data by looking through his credible citations.

Edited April 10, 2007 by NBVegita

[SeVeR]

Holy crap that Junk Science is extremely deceptive... no wonder it's called Junk Science, are you sure its not a joke? For instance:

 

Do greenhouse gases 'reradiate' the infrared radiation they absorb?

This is an unfortunate expression that is all too common. Absorbed radiation is transformed to either kinetic or potential energy and, as such, no longer exists in its original form -- hence, it cannot be "reradiated." When molecules absorb infrared radiation they are said to become excited ("hot"). Such molecules can release energy usually in one of three ways: by chemical reaction (uncommon, since greenhouse gases are pretty stable and non-reactive); quenching (transferring energy to cooler molecules, increasing their temperature) and; emission (usually at lower energy [longer wavelength] radiation than the energy previously absorbed). Once more, since the absorbed energy has been transformed it cannot be said to be "reradiated".

I'm a nuclear physicist so can tell you that it's more like re-radiation than anything. Atoms and molecules have defined quantum levels. They rest in the ground state and can be moved into excited states upon absorbing radiation. The separation of the ground state from the excited state is defined by the bond properties of the molecule and the s!@#$%^&* structure of the electrons. Therefore molecules such as CO2 absorb defined values of EM radiation, of the amount that gets them into an excited state. Inevitably the CO2 does not stay in this state and must re-emit that energy to return to the ground state, and for this to happen the same amount of energy that was absorbed must be emitted. The emission is long wavelength/low energy but that is what was absorbed in the first place, and it's interesting to note than this "longer wavelngth" actually corresponds to infra-red radiation, which is commonly !@#$%^&*ociated with heat energy!

 

No. The term "greenhouse effect" is unfortunate since it often results in a totally false impression of the activity of so-called "greenhouse gases." An actual greenhouse works as a physical barrier to convection (the transfer of heat by currents in a fluid) while the atmosphere facilitates convection. So-called "greenhouse gases" in the Earth's atmosphere do not act as a barrier to convection so the impression of actual greenhouse-like activity in the Earth's atmosphere is wrong.

Another twisting of the truth. The principle of the Earth's greenhouse effect is close to the same as an ordinary greenhouse. The difference is a greenhouse works by preventing convection AND stopping the passge of infra-red (heat) radiation. The gl!@#$%^&* is opaque to infra-red radiation and reflects it back into the greenhouse interior, heating it up. The greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb infra-red radiation and re-emit it in random directions. Obviously this is less efficient that an actual greenhouse but it's still a greenhouse effect in that half the infra-red (heat) radiation is sent back down to Earth. Water, CO2 and Methane all absorb and re-emit (re-radiate) in the infra-red part of the EM spectrum.

 

Are greenhouse gases like a blanket around the Earth?

No, for the same reason that they don't behave like an actual greenhouse, they simply do not behave as a barrier to convective activity and so aren't "like a blanket."

Wrong. They absorb infra-red radiation and re-emit the same EM frequencies in random directions - causing a significant percentage of the heat to be re-radiatied back to Earth. This is as much of a blanket as anything. The only thing he's right about is the gases not behaving as a barrier to convective activity, but drawing a conclusion from only one of the three types of heat transportation is intentionally deceptive.

 

A representation of relative emission wavelengths can be seen on the following graphic.

 

Greenhouse gases, therefore, do not "trap heat," but could be fairly described as delaying the energy transfer from Earth to space. "Trapping heat" implies that the energy is stuck in the system forever -- this is a false notion. Greenhouse gases do not emit energy in the same bandwidth that they absorb energy, and thus emissions from carbon dioxide are not absorbed by carbon dioxide. While energy may be delayed on its inevitable journey back to space, it will eventually be emitted regardless of the number of intervening stages.

The graphic in question shows the blackbody emission spectra of the sun and the Earth and tells us that greenhouse gases do not trap heat as these two peaks are not in the same region of the spectrum. This couldn't be more deceptive. The sun's emission spectrum is irrelevent because if it did emit in the infra-red we'd all be fried instantly. What's important is the comparison of the Earth's emission spectrum (they got 1 out of 2) with the CO2 absorption spectrum. What you'll find is a large area of CO2 absorption around 13-15 microns, right in the middle of Earth's blackbody emission spectrum. CO2 very effectively absorbs the Earth's heat emissions.

 

Here they finally give us this information, which completely contradicts what they said earlier: http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/absorbspec.gif

 

But they combine it with this laughable and unintelligible diatribe about "saturation":

The adjacent radiation absorption window graphic gives an idea of which molecules absorb various wavelengths. Where the shaded portions completely span between 2 lines it indicates that particular wavelength is fully absorbed and the "window" is saturated (or said to be "closed"). Rather obviously, once a window is saturated adding more gases with the same properties will do nothing.

Do they think that these gases are infinitely concentrated or something? A higher concentration of CO2 gas will absorb more heat. An absorptivity of "1" does not mean that all heat is absorbed unless you actually have CO2 or water present in sufficient concentrations to absorb it in the first place!

 

CO2 feeds the forests, grows more usable lumber in timber lots meaning there is less pressure to cut old growth or push into "natural" wildlife habitat, makes plants more water efficient helping to beat back the encroaching deserts in Africa and Asia and generally increases bio-productivity. If it's "pollution," then it's pollution the natural world exploits extremely well and to great profit. Doesn't sound too bad to us.

Now he's telling us how CO2 is wonderful. It sure does feed the forests, but it poisons us. Heavy metals in our blood are crucial for keeping us alive, but too much and we die, the same is true for CO2. But this section is all complete bs designed to distract from the issue of global warming.

 

Humans' total ac!@#$%^&*ulated carbon contribution could account for perhaps 25% of the total non-water greenhouse gases

And if that's not significant i don't know what is.

 

Ah, we've added 2.5% to the total greenhouse effect then?

Not exactly, if it were such a simple ac!@#$%^&*ulation, we could easily determine exactly how much Earth would warm from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 (not much) and certainly that would be an improvement on the silly figures bandied about. Theoretically, in a dry atmosphere, carbon dioxide could absorb about three times more energy than it actually does, as could clouds in the absence of all other greenhouse gases -- look at it as there already being "compe!@#$%^&*ion" for available suitable longwave radiation (energy these gases can absorb), if you like.

Actually the CO2 in the atmosphere would already be shielded to some extent by the water, making the effects of this shielding the standard. If they weren't currently shielded then the effects would be much worse. Therefore the addition of more CO2 will be shielded in the same way (or at least a fraction of a percent more) meaning we can indeed call this a 2.5% addition to the greenhouse effect since the start of the industrial revolution.

 

Then he goes off to discuss the finer points, and i don't have time to go though the whole page.

 

Suffice to say the article is false on most of its primary premises and appears to be deliberately deceptive. I've seen this before on religious forums. Christians will link to a webpage (typically www.answersingenesis.org) and will come out with claims such as "entropy prevents evolution", or "the Earth really is 6000 years old". The webpage in question will use scientific terminolgy to deceive the reader into believing exactly what he/she wants to believe. It's not surprising that this technique is employed for political purposes aswell. It's a good thing i know a little about absorption spectroscopy...

Edited April 10, 2007 by SeVeR

[NBVegita]

I wasn't arguing his theories behind greenhouse gases and their effects, I was using the statistics cited directly from the sources he lists, which if you read through the sources are credible.

 

Never once have I tried to use any of the above mentioned in our debate.

[SeVeR]

The selection of what statistics to use come under the bias of the author. We both agree that a global warming graph of the last century used to draw a conclusion about global warming is deceptive without a longer time-frame. The source is still true, the selection of statistics is biased though.

 

Still i'm quite happy to agree that 2.5% of the current greenhouse effect is contributed by human influence. This fits quite well with the temperature rise we've seen over the same time, and supports everything i've said.

[NBVegita]

Humans' total ac!@#$%^&*ulated carbon contribution could account for perhaps 25% of the total non-water greenhouse gases (that is, accounting for all the increase since the Industrial Revolution regardless of source and irrespective of whether warming from any cause might result in an increase in natural emission to atmosphere -- we're simply claiming the lot as anthropogenic or human-caused here).

 

He is saying !@#$%^&*uming we believe the hype that we've cause it all.

 

did you read my second source?

Edited April 10, 2007 by NBVegita