Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Global warming skeptics send letter to Congress urging members not


jbg

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 265
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm not sure what spectrum the radiation covers - I don't think it's just infrared.

Just a few gases absorb IR.CO2,Water Vapor and Methane are three of the biggest ones.

Here is a chart that shows how little CO2 absorbs IR:

HERE

and,

HERE

These charts from my forum shows how minor CO2 is as a IR absorber.Only about 6% of OUTGOING IR are absorbed by the few CO2 molecules that are available in the atmosphere.It is a trace gas and near historic lows in today's atmosphere.Not much above starvation levels for the green plants to live on.

Methane barely absorbs any IR at all.Since they have minimal band absorptive capability.All that talk about how much more Methane can absorb IR over CO2 (25 times more) is misleading and propagandist.

HERE

Carbon does NOT absorb Infrared Radiation.

Edited by sunsettommy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, are you denying that Carbon levels in the atmosphere are a significant factor in warming ?

Mike,Carbon is not the same as Carbon Dioxide.

Carbon is an element.Does not absorb IR at all.

CO2 is a molecular gas in the atmosphere.It absorbs some of the IR.

It is plain that you are very confused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, you're right. I don't know chemistry. I thought people used 'Carbon' as short form for CO2. Thanks for correcting me on that.

So, it's CO2 level that's acknowledged as having the effect on warming, then. Got it.

Yes.

If you are familiar with the Anthropogenic Global Warming(AGW)hypothesis.You would know that they believe that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere would promote warming.But actually by itself it is only a slight warming of no more than about 1 degree F.It is the idea that positive feedbacks are increasing in reaction to increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere.To create that big warming trend they are wailing about.

HERE is a chart showing the logarithmic curve of CO2 warming effect.It is very small after the first 50 ppm.

The problem is that there has been empirical evidence only for NEGATIVE feedbacks in operation in the climate system.Positive feedbacks exists only in climate models.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a few gases absorb IR.CO2,Water Vapor and Methane are three of the biggest ones.

Here is a chart that shows how little CO2 absorbs IR:

HERE

and,

HERE

These charts from my forum shows how minor CO2 is as a IR absorber.Only about 6% of OUTGOING IR are absorbed by the few CO2 molecules that are available in the atmosphere.It is a trace gas and near historic lows in today's atmosphere.Not much above starvation levels for the green plants to live on.

Methane barely absorbs any IR at all.Since they have minimal band absorptive capability.All that talk about how much more Methane can absorb IR over CO2 (25 times more) is misleading and propagandist.

HERE

Carbon does NOT absorb Infrared Radiation.

:lol: he links to his own posts as evidence :lol:

methane has 21 times the GWP of CO2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol: he links to his own posts as evidence :lol:

methane has 21 times the GWP of CO2

I have known about that for years.But do YOU know why it is misleading?

It has to do with the frequency bands Methane has in the IR spectral window.I have already showed you what it is.

:rolleyes:

Edited by sunsettommy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok. Is that what Richard Lindzen says ?

Try DR. Roy Spenser.Who has published science papers on feedbacks.

He posted it at his website too.Here are several links for you to ponder over.All from his website:

Strong Negative Feedback from the Latest CERES Radiation Budget Measurements Over the Global Oceans

Some Comments on the Lindzen and Choi (2009) Feedback Study

UPDATE: Further Evidence of Low Climate Sensitivity from NASA’s Aqua Satellite

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you know what the positive feedback hypothesis is based on?

I don't know what the "global catastrophe" folks would say but in general, the idea of positive and negative feedback is pretty simple.

With any system, if you want it to be stable and tend to run in a "safe" condition you use what are called feedback loops. Most control loops are negative. Imagine a steam boiler, with a gauge to read the pressure. If it is an electrical type of gauge you can set a maximum pressure point. If the pressure gets that high a signal would be sent to the heating element, making it cool down a bit. This would reduce the pressure to a safe point below the "red line".

In the same manner, a positive loop could be created. You would have a meter or some kind of sensor with a MINIMUM setting. If the pressure falls below that point the heating element would get "dialed up", raising the temperature and thus the pressure to keep it from falling too low.

Combinations of feedback loops would control the system to keep the output (steam pressure) within a desired range.

The same principles would be happening with weather and climate systems. Sunlight falling through a clear sky onto water will tend to make the water vaporize, adding moisture to the air which can form clouds. Clouds tend to block some of the solar energy, reducing the amount of vaporization.

It can be hard to discover exactly what feedback loops Mother Nature uses, or how each interacts with all the others. Melting Arctic Ice might allow more cold water from currents to move into an area, making it easier for ice to form the next winter. Still, it only makes sense that weather and climate MUST have many feedback loops for things to stay within a relatively small range for thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years!

Some folks believe that Man's influence might over-stimulate a positive feedback agent, like too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If there's no compensating negative feedback loops then the CO2 effect might become magnified far beyond what's comfortable for human beings. It would cause excessive global warming, frying tropical countries, melting the ice caps causing low-lying areas to flood and also giving Canada a nice, balmy climate where we might go surfing in James Bay!

I don't know enough to debate one side or the other as to the likelihood of any catastrophe looming but as a techie I find it hard to believe that Mother Nature does not have a large number of powerful feedback loops in her climate systems. I just don't believe that things could be as stable as they have been for eons and eons! True, we've had hotter and colder times but without feedback loops I would have expected that long ago we would have seen the entire planet forever covered in ice or else too scalding hot for life to survive, as on the planet Venus. In fact, that might be what happened to Venus to prevent it from ever forming a habitable eco-system.

Anyhow, that's the skinny on feedback loops!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some folks believe that Man's influence might over-stimulate a positive feedback agent, like too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If there's no compensating negative feedback loops then the CO2 effect might become magnified far beyond what's comfortable for human beings. It would cause excessive global warming, frying tropical countries, melting the ice caps causing low-lying areas to flood and also giving Canada a nice, balmy climate where we might go surfing in James Bay!

The problem is that POSITIVE feedbacks have not gone beyond modeling stage.While NEGATIVE feedbacks are observed reality using Satellite data.

I have already posted 3 links showing the reality of Negative feedbacks.

Too much CO2 in the atmosphere?

It is presently near historic lows of the past 500 million years.

Tropical climate is actually similar to what it was during the warmest times in Earth history.It is the other regions that have large temperature changes:

CHART

Mesozoic is a very warm climate epoch.Often 8-12 C,warmer than today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

There's only one solution to global warming and ironically the environmentalist oppose it....nuclear. After 40 years of wind and solar failing to supply us enough power you'ld think nuclear would be more popular, guess they need another 40 years to figure this out, hopefully the planet will survicve long enough for them to swallow their pride and put the environment ahead of their own fanatical beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your ignorance is vivid.The source I used is valid and uses only published temperature data.

Plus you mispelled a few words.

He he.

Don't care about your data..I looked at the sky as a kid and it was blue---now on a hot day - I would look south to the city and the sky is green with dirt...and dirt holds heat - so shut up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't care about your data..I looked at the sky as a kid and it was blue---now on a hot day - I would look south to the city and the sky is green with dirt...and dirt holds heat - so shut up.

Also - to ignore means to be ignorant...I am not in that state - I do not ignore...whether damage - nor the fact that carbon particals absorb the suns rays...perhaps it is YOU that ignores the fire as your feet blister?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once science becomes political, science becomes a bi-personality. The science that supports the political position is fact, and the science that does not concur with or refutes the political position becomes junk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still not going to discuss anything I see.

Wish I could have a discussion regarding climate destruction and disruption...but I can't - those that deny global warming are usually those doing well materially...and want their heaven now even if it means leaving a hell once you are gone - to have this discussion is like trying to convince a very rich man to part with his wealth - and embrace real wealth - which is the beautiful natural world - YOU have to destroy nature to create artifical wealth...so what is there to talk about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wish I could have a discussion regarding climate destruction and disruption...but I can't - those that deny global warming are usually those doing well materially...and want their heaven now even if it means leaving a hell once you are gone - to have this discussion is like trying to convince a very rich man to part with his wealth - and embrace real wealth - which is the beautiful natural world - YOU have to destroy nature to create artifical wealth...so what is there to talk about?

:lol:

It is obvious that you will refuse to consider the evidence I presented.And continue with your silly doom and gloom feelings about the climate.I consider that as fighting reality in favor for propaganda.

The recent warming trend is not at all unusual or dangerous.That is a fact I have already presented.This is what you can not face.

But the fact is that there has NEVER been any sustained GLOBAL warming trend,since at least 1979 anyway.It has been mostly a NORTHERN hemisphere warming.That "Hockey Stick" paper was based on NORTHERN HEMISPHERE temperature reconstructions.Only a science illiterate will still fall for such a bad science paper.

Not only that.We have been sliding into a new ice age phase,for a few thousand years now.The big drop is coming fairly soon.

There are far more serious environmental issues than "climate change" to deal with.When are you going to see that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...