i have a simple equation

sunlight + CO2 + water = food (glucose) + o2 + water

5/19/2008 4:27:43 PM

Except that old growth forests were doing perfectly well before A) we started chopping them all down and B) we started adding man-made CO2 into the atmosphere. But for your sake I will just chalk your statement up to you were making a joke.

5/19/2008 4:31:29 PM

Quote :

"but if you are, no no sophomore in physics can prove what nobody thus far as been able and that is what exact effect increased C02 concentration has."

The sun emits light.
This arrives at the Earth at some intensity per area.
Also, some intensity per area per frequency unit, over all frequencies of light.

say, I_s(f)

This is the intensity of light I_s coming from the sun at every frequency f before it enters the atmosphere. It follows a blackbody profile mostly b/c the sun is hot. Hot things emit radiation, in the sun's case, light.

Then the atmosphere has some absorption spectra.

A(f)

Representing the percent of light absorbed at every frequency. then

(1-A(f))*I_s(f)

would be what reaches the ground. The ground reflects some light, we'll define

R(f)

As the average percentage of light reflected at every frequency by a typical unit of ground. Then

R(f)*(1-A(f))*I_s(f)

is reflected back into space. Then the ground absorbs the integral of the unreflected light as heat, and then there will be some blackbody radiation spectrum for any given heat, size, and surface area of the Earth with some emissivity constants from the nature of the ground.

irradiated from ground: B(f,int((1-R(f))*(1-A(f))*I_s(f),f=0..inf))

if B(f,P) is the correctly found blackbody radiation spectrum for some power rate P. In reality P yields a temperature which then determines the spectrum, but this accounts for the needed stuff. So now the average spectrum radiated and reflected by the ground that passes through the atmosphere neglecting the infinite series of back reflection and absorption entirely:

(1-A(f))*(B(f,int((1-R(f))*(1-A(f))*I_s(f),f=0..inf))+R(f)*(1-A(f))*I_s(f))

You can make this more complicated, but you don't need even this complexity to deduce weather scientists are full of shit or not. Imagine a new A'(f) with higher carbon content.

It will change the result. The Earth will be hotter. The most simplified first level approach would be to only consider the extra light blocked from going into space.



There is one little hump that's important there.

Say the Earth increase 5 deg C in temp over the next century. The fact that it changed 5 deg, and not 7 deg is a very complicated matter for some of the brightest minds in the world.

However, the fact that it conservatively was set to rise over 3 deg C could be verified by a high schooler.

Anyone who tells you different is trying to sell you something.

5/19/2008 5:20:43 PM

^ Don't forget the size of the energy waves. It's quite important actually.

5/19/2008 5:42:28 PM

right, but to verify the severity of global warming, you only need to worry about that up going thermal radiation. Look at the absorption spectra of CO2. That simplifies the problem greatly.

5/19/2008 5:57:46 PM

I have to go right now--more later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:EM_Spectrum_Properties_edit.svg#file

[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 6:03 PM. Reason : .]

5/19/2008 6:02:32 PM

you can't isolate one compound in the atmosphere, you need to know how they all work together.

[Edited on May 19, 2008 at 6:32 PM. Reason : I mean I understand how those things work, thats not whats at debate here]

5/19/2008 6:30:52 PM

^ huh?

5/19/2008 6:53:43 PM

You know what, I'd rather worry about the real problems that confront mankind in the here and now. Already we have seen the destructive consequences of fear driven envirowacko ethanol. WE are starving the third world just to sooth some guilt over a non-existent problem.

Tax on energy, tax on living in a modern fashion because our very breath is a "pollutant". Not really that surprising since the most ardent environmentalist are the same folks that would like to see a drastic decrease in the human population for the sake of the planet.

WHY? Its a mass of rocks with some gas and stuff. You know what, if it raises a few degrees big deal. It will not be a problem if we allow ourselves to freely confront the climate change with modern technologies. The planet has had different temperatures at previous times. Difference for us humans is back then famine that were local were for all intents and purposes global for those folks, with no evil CO2 producing transports we had no way of moving food to where it was needed.

There is no solution to fossil fuel reliance with our current technology. Face that fact. Let human kind use what we have learned to live. Don't buy the hype and let your own ill placed guilt motivate a political movement whose true casualities are not oil companies or republicans. It is the third world that enviromentalism will hurt the most. But hey, those are hardly humans and we have too many already.

5/19/2008 7:05:53 PM

You know, if it was just about CO2 or even greenhouse gases then you might have a point. But your folly is trying to tie all of environmentalism into your notion of the "global warming hype". It's a scary thought to allow us to ruin our natural world so that we can simply "live and learn".

5/19/2008 7:31:09 PM

not to say that if oil-coal-gas were infinite resources the struggle to curtail use of them would be easier, but as they are very finite in the real world, the attempt to stop use before they are "empty" is mostly a futile fight against the free market.

But at the same time, the limitation of said fuels should render the argument that it's "just too hard" or "unnecessary" defunct. It's like if you were stuck on a desert island with a truck full of pork rinds. You know (or have likely cause to think) that eating them isn't good for you, it's a fact that you will run out, but yet you with no survival experience still don't forge for other foods as long as they're available. It's just easier this way.

5/19/2008 11:25:20 PM

Quote :

"^ huh?"

Yeah sorry about that. I only had 3 hrs of sleep yesterday so I wasn't the most coherent person.

I was saying while everything you posted is all well and good it is not known what the effects of greatly increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere are. You can try to apply known equations and formulas but that doesn't work.

Does that make sense now? (no sarcasm)

5/20/2008 9:42:36 AM

If history is any indicator, a large increase in CO2 will result in a correspondingly large temperature increase.

I realize that the cumulative effects of greenhouse gases are not additive, but you can bet that adding large quantities of CO2 to the atmosphere will increase temperatures, much the way they have in past millenia.

5/20/2008 9:49:30 AM

^^

ok, well firstly, this isn't about interactions between compounds in the atmosphere. There are lots of feedback looks included in IPCC and whoevers models, but I think most of them about about ocean absorbs CO2 by this law, trees photosynthesize by this law, ice follows these laws, ground absorption changes by these laws, etc.

What you're saying sounds like the exact opposite of what I'm saying. Yeah, the feedback looks are important, but the fundamental driving force is a function of the concentration of CO2 which is directly measured. A huge amount of the work they do with feedbacks is to find that concentration.



I mean, case closed there. 390 > 310 by a significant amount.

From there, applying the equations does work. Nothing, in all of the complicated factors is going to change the basic significance of that little part of the absorption spectrum of CO2.

5/20/2008 9:55:06 AM

^You continue to mistakenly assume that you can isolate the effects of individual greenhouse gases. They are not additive. The interaction between the gases must be considered.

Because all greenhouse gases work the same way (radiative forcing via infrared absorbers), and there is an overlap between the frequency of light absorbed, the effects of the gases cannot be thought of as independent of each other.

That said, it is safe to assume that other things being constant, increasing CO2 will increase radiative forcing (and corresponding surface temperatures), although it's not a linear function.


[Edited on May 20, 2008 at 10:15 AM. Reason : 2]

5/20/2008 10:05:01 AM

Lets not forget that throughout history CO2 increases have FOLLOWED temperature increases, NOT caused them.

5/20/2008 11:02:38 AM

Quote :

"Because all greenhouse gases work the same way (radiative forcing via infrared absorbers), and there is an overlap between the frequency of light absorbed, the effects of the gases cannot be thought of as independent of each other."

But this is the story of the first image I posted on this page isn't it? There is a certain spectrum that is "getting through" into space - that comes from the composition of the ground, the other gases, and all sorts of things. What that spectrum comes from is complicated, but we know the answer measured accurately from satellites. From there we take some functional of the CO2 absorbed/reflected spectrum and the upgoing thermal radiation to get what more is absorbed/reflected, which then goes into some less simple blackbody calculations.

The frequencies that CO2 absorbs and reflects is mostly already suppressed as can be seen. So yeah, won't be much. But it doesn't seem like some golden fruit that PhDs working for Al Gore have justification to not give a simplified explanation of.

5/20/2008 11:36:10 AM

Quote :

"I realize that the cumulative effects of greenhouse gases are not additive, but you can bet that adding large quantities of CO2 to the atmosphere will increase temperatures, much the way they have in past millenia. "

i didn't realize we had thermometers several millenia ago.

5/20/2008 5:43:26 PM

No but there was ice. Way to pwn yourself.

5/20/2008 6:04:05 PM

Quote :

"HockeyRoman You know, if it was just about CO2 or even greenhouse gases then you might have a point. But your folly is trying to tie all of environmentalism into your notion of the "global warming hype". It's a scary thought to allow us to ruin our natural world so that we can simply "live and learn"."

My point is that the real most troubling "unintended consequences" come from government imposed environmental regulations. I'll agree with solutions to pollution that markedly maligns the quality of life. I think open sewers are bad for example. I think that the push for lead free gas is good. I'd like to see a ban on cosmetic fertilizers because having green lawns is no trade for water pollution. There are lots of real environmental problems which I support regulations for. BUT, all of these have one aspect in common, they are real problems which disrupt the health of existing people in nontrivial ways.

The pantheon of failed hypotheticals is well-known. Find me a population model that actually predicts the sum of world history. My whole life I've heard that the earth cannot possibly support X-amount of people. I suppose that there may be a real "carrying capacity" for the earth but I would be hesitant to proffer a figure. The fact of the matter is that with more people there are more ideas. People are themselves a resource. Once we get to the point of not having enough food or energy then either we will find more food or energy or we will die. Either way, all the people that lived before still lived. How do we quantify what is "best" for the planet? As if the planet can feel.

What I do know is that people can feel. I know that man will not be truly happy if he is not free to apply technologies that are known. If we curtail carbon emissions as the current crop of pathetic politicians suggest it will mean that less energy is consumed. Do you really think that is a step forward? As if the energy consumption is somehow evil. NO. it is the modern way of life. It is no more evil than wind, rain or eating vegetables. This creeping idea that energy conservation is somehow moral is an obvious admission of the religious nature of the movement. So sad that evangelicals mistake the morality of environmentalism for the morality that puts human life at the pinnacle of existence.

To summarize, I can give you real ways that energy use elevates the quality of life. These are not hypotheticals. Oil is the lifeblood of our way of life, we cannot survive without it unless new technologies are found. To suggest that we are not really looking for the technologies is about as credible as denying the holocaust or buying into the 911 conspiracy theories. Given the price of gas there is tremendous opportunity for new technologies. There is no need for HRC or BO or McBain to come and take my economic freedom, create a new federal tentacle. The market will produce the technology if it is possible.

Quote :

"mrfrog not to say that if oil-coal-gas were infinite resources the struggle to curtail use of them would be easier, but as they are very finite in the real world, the attempt to stop use before they are "empty" is mostly a futile fight against the free market. But at the same time, the limitation of said fuels should render the argument that it's "just too hard" or "unnecessary" defunct. It's like if you were stuck on a desert island with a truck full of pork rinds. You know (or have likely cause to think) that eating them isn't good for you, it's a fact that you will run out, but yet you with no survival experience still don't forge for other foods as long as they're available. It's just easier this way."

But its not a known finite quantity. As the price rises all sorts of new extraction methods become tenable. If there is an end of the resource it will be a slow decline, its not going to be like we are eating a bag of chips and all the sudden there are only crumbs. Even now we continue to find new fossil fuel deposits.

5/20/2008 6:06:53 PM

Quote :

"No but there was ice. Way to pwn yourself."

I was not aware that ICE tells the temperature. Man, that's awesome! Fuck going out and buying mercury and shit. I'm just gonna freeze up some ice. Do they have digital ice?

5/20/2008 8:22:05 PM

Make sure it knows how to read Oxygen Isotopes as well. I very much want to tell you how obtuse you are being but I refuse to come down to your level of ignorance.

5/20/2008 8:49:44 PM

I'm fine w/ reading isotopes as well. still doesn't change the fact that ice is not a thermometer, except to tell you when the temperature is above or below the freezing point

5/21/2008 7:25:13 PM

Didn't burro already make this impossibly dumb error?

Has this thread become that long?

5/21/2008 7:30:29 PM

nope. there is no error here.

5/21/2008 7:45:47 PM

An educated person would have known that when I said ice I was implying O2 isotopes. But please continue looking foolish.

5/21/2008 8:14:30 PM

thats really not enough to go on for a historical record. Not to mention sendiment samples taken from the bottoms of lakes don't jive with the ice core samples.

5/22/2008 12:28:28 AM

Well then you should take that up with those that use ice cores as historical records.

5/22/2008 2:15:17 AM

Quote :

"An educated person would have known that when I said ice I was implying O2 isotopes."

Hey now, some people on here aren't scientists

5/22/2008 1:47:52 PM

My apologies.

5/22/2008 8:03:02 PM

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90V9JD81&show_article=1

Hehehe. Might be more endurable as an opera.

5/29/2008 2:23:56 PM

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/news/article_1407867.php/Czech_President_Klaus_ready_to_debate_Gore_on_climate_change

6/2/2008 1:05:27 PM

Once again the US is having historically cool temperatures. For the month of May, it's down again. lol

6/2/2008 1:15:17 PM

This year's La Nina has already been discussed but I guess your late arrival to the party is better than never, right?

6/2/2008 4:07:22 PM

^ HockeyRoman monitors NASA data, NOAA data, and the "An Inconvenient Truth" thread 24/7. It's the call of duty.

6/2/2008 4:14:58 PM

whether you believe in Global Warming/Climate change or not we should all be skeptical of what our politicians think we should be doing about it. Heres an article on the Environmental power Grab

Quote :

"There is no greater instrument of social control than rationing energy "

http://www.charlotte.com/409/story/648458.html

6/2/2008 4:20:15 PM

^^ Hehe. I am actually back home now since the shuttle took off without a hitch.

I am still troubled that there still seems to be a coupling between the climate change debate and environmentalism as a whole. Detractors continue to make climate change the same as environmentalism as opposed to accurately describing it as a subset.

6/2/2008 4:31:39 PM

^^great read...spot on

and notice how Klaus' visit to the US last week got virtually no mainstream media coverage

[Edited on June 2, 2008 at 4:32 PM. Reason : .]

6/2/2008 4:32:13 PM

No, sorry, it's not spot on. It, too, falls into the trap of making environmentalism = climate change as if it is the only issue important to those who value the protection of our natural world.

6/2/2008 4:36:44 PM

Yes, sorry, it is spot on. But analogously, I wouldn't expect a devout Christian to agree with an agnostic.

6/2/2008 4:42:20 PM

How is it spot on?

Environmentalism is merely tool by which to increase the power of the government?

Paging salisburyboy

6/2/2008 4:47:11 PM

Boone I've tried to explain my perspective on climate change to you for literally years, and you still don't have a clue

He's primarily spot-on with his assessment of the lack of understanding of complex Earth systems on which models are based, and the foolishness of jumping to "there is no debate" type definitive conclusions based on that data. But people like you still think only Exxon shills would dare to question something so absolute as anthropomorphic climate change

In regards to environmentalism as a church / societal control, there are people in any opinionated group that take things to the extreme. Plenty of environmentalists have the right intentions and motives, but you might think that big oil companies are the only guilty parties in disinformation leading to their own increased profits

I'll bet you're currently searching for Klaus on sourcewatch so you can find something on him and immediately dismiss him as a puppet...


[Edited on June 2, 2008 at 5:05 PM. Reason : .]

6/2/2008 4:58:18 PM

no, I'm wondering what anthropomorphic climate change is...

6/2/2008 5:06:46 PM

anthropogenic, sorry

way to ignore everything else though, its exactly what i expected from you

why would you debate the substance of my last post when you don't understand it and its much easier to play grammar nazi

6/2/2008 5:08:46 PM

Quote :

"There is no greater instrument of social control than rationing energy. . . ."

Yep. If you go back in this thread and elsewhere, you'll see that the power grab has been my primary objection to the alarmists' proposals from the beginning.

6/2/2008 5:12:28 PM

hopefully gas goes up to about 300 dollars a barrel and then we start drilling in ala$ka


CHA-CHING

6/2/2008 5:12:57 PM

I got news for you on gas prices...they're not going to go down...regardless of who gets elected

6/2/2008 5:14:55 PM

Quote :

"the lack of understanding of complex Earth systems on which models are based, and the foolishness of jumping to "there is no debate" type definitive conclusions based on that data."

Why even bother debating this with you, though? Sure, our understanding is limited, and there certainly is debate over the extent to which greenhouse gases are effecting our climate. But there really is no real debate over whether or not anthropogenic climate change is real.

Your posts in this thread prove it. In your attempts to produce uncertainty over the central issue, you (collectively) have been forced to cite the most ridiculous sources imaginable.

The president of the Czech Republic? Come on.

Quote :

"Yep. If you go back in this thread and elsewhere, you'll see that the power grab has been my primary objection to the alarmists' proposals from the beginning."

Exactly. Your primary objection to the science presented to you is its ideological consequences. Which is why no one takes you seriously in this thread. (or any other thread, but that's for other reasons).

[Edited on June 2, 2008 at 5:17 PM. Reason : .]

6/2/2008 5:15:21 PM

and like clockwork, boone claims klaus is a puppet...the president of a country in europe? what could that idiot know, he's president of a country in europe!!1 he's not even a former VP in Amurrica!1

Quote :

"But there really is no real debate over whether or not anthropogenic climate change is real."

of course not.....and I'm the one drinking the Kool-aid, not you....its open-and-shut folks...theres no debate...if you dare question Emperor Gore you will be struck down

I think Boone should be banned from this thread for the reason that he has no idea what he is talking about

6/2/2008 5:17:28 PM

lol i dont get why you put that "i got news for you" thing treetwista

6/2/2008 5:20:56 PM