 
     |
| The evidence against anthropogenic global warming (Page 569/600) |
|
rinselberg
|
APR 25, 12:13 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by jmclemore:
Which 1 of these 2 forms of CO2 production is worse for the environment?
(temporarily granting the argument that CO2 is harmful to the environment)
1. Internal Combustion of carbon based fuels.
2. Naturally occurring forest fires and volcanic eruptions. |
|
Extracting energy from the combustion of carbon-based fossil fuels is "way" more significant in terms of contributing to global warming, because of the carbon dioxide byproduct.
I have posted on this forum before about volcanic activity and greenhouse gases. The reports that I cited are in agreement that human reliance on fossil fuels and emissions from other human activities are releasing greenhouse gases--CO2 most of all--at a rate that is about 100 times greater, molecule per molecule, than the sum total of volcanic activity all around the world. (In terms of the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere every year.) The reports take into account the volcanic eruptions that are seen around the world every year. Obviously, some years are more "volcanic" than other years, but the reports are based on averages over many years.
The reports take into account what is known about offshore and deep ocean floor volcanic activity, in addition to volcanic activity on all of the continental land masses.
It almost goes without saying that scientists cannot be measuring on a round the clock basis the kinds and amounts of gases that are emitted into the atmosphere from every volcanic source all around the world. What they have done is to capture air samples and take measurements with gas analyzers close up to a number of active volcanos and other geographic formations (geysers; hot springs; "what have you"). Then they extrapolate, using what is known about the geographic distribution and magnitudes of volcanos and similar geographic formations, all around the world, to estimate the total volcanic attribution for CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
The volcanic attribution is a topic of ongoing study and research, but from the reports that I have seen, I believe there are more scientists that are sizing up the volcanic attribution as "small potatoes" compared to the human attribution; more than the numbers of scientists that say otherwise.
Turning to unintended forest fires and brush fires or wildfires, all of which release CO2 from the combustion of organic materials--still "small potatoes" compared to the human attribution from fossil fuels, agriculture, construction using concrete and other "stuff" that only humans are responsible for. The CO2 that is released from forest fires and brush fires is largely the same CO2 that was removed from the atmosphere by the process of photosynthesis, while the trees and other vegetation that burned were alive--before they caught fire. As the burned-out areas are recolonized by new plant life, the same CO2 is drawn out of the air again by photosynthesis and sequestered in the mass of new vegetation, until it catches fire again or decomposes in some other way. It's very cyclical. It's not a perfect balance, because of the time that it takes for CO2 to be recaptured by new plant life or forest metabolism and growth, but in the cogitations of the IPCC and the other scientists who are on board with the general thinking about AGW, forest fires and brush fires are not doing nearly as much damage as reliance on fossil fuels.
The carbon in fossil fuels was removed from the prehistoric atmosphere as the coal, oil and natural gas formations were laid down, starting many millions of years ago and over many millions of years long past as the deposits were created. Releasing this "prehistoric" or fossil carbon into the atmosphere as a byproduct of using the fossil fuels is nothing like the cyclical process of forests and other vegetation that absorbs carbon from the atmosphere and then returns carbon to the atmosphere when it burns or otherwise dies and decomposes. This organic carbon cycle of plant growth and destruction is measured in hundreds and thousands of years. The carbon cycle of fossil fuels is measured in millions of years. So it is not possible for humans as a species to depend upon "Mother Nature" to capture the carbon that is being released by using fossil fuels and sequester it below ground again within new coal beds and oil and natural gas formations.[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-25-2016).]
|
|
|
|
jmclemore
|
APR 25, 01:30 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
Extracting energy from the combustion of carbon-based fossil fuels is "way" more significant in terms of contributing to global warming, because of the carbon dioxide byproduct.
.......
|
|
Since the release of CO2 is the same from the combustion (burning)
of all carbon materials, I fail to see how the combustion of a refined fuel
is more harmful than the burning of mass acreage. Both increase available
CO2 levels but only 1 actually reduces the environment's ability to sequester it.
One contributor produces more CO2 and requires the environment to deal with the excess.
The other produces excess CO2 and temporarily handicaps the environment in the process.
This is like setting a fire truck on fire and saying it's no big deal because it use to fight fires
and when they replace it, the new fire truck will put out fires.
But lets be clear about the ability to track, measure and document volcanic activity as well
as it's effect. These are not uneducated people standing around with notepads and
cameras. What they lack in ability to physically observe they compensate with software to
calculate potential outcomes. Please, do not expect me to believe that it is a virtually impossible
task to determine volcanic frequency and impact.
The carbon cycle of fossil fuels is measured in millions of years. So it is not possible for humans as a species to depend upon "Mother Nature" to capture the carbon that is being released from fossil fuels and recycle it by sequestering it below ground again within new coal beds and oil and natural gas formations.
That is the most short sighted statement I have ever read.
For it to be believed, we would have to accept the assumption
that there is nothing that can be humanly done except stop using
fossil fuels.
That is one of the issues I have with the whole argument for
anthropogenic global warming. There seems to be an endless
supply of positive solutions when the discussion is about periodic
and frequent natural releases of co2 but when referring human
releases the conversation becomes very narrow in regards to options.
(Temporarily granting the CO2 is harmful to the environment position)
On the issue of volcanic co2 releases. Much of that material was
deeper in the ground than our oil and natural gas deposits. That
would give volcanic released CO2 a much longer return path, would
it not.[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 04-25-2016).]
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
APR 25, 04:01 AM
|
|
What you seem not to grasp is that one of the fundamental "planks" of the AGW "platform" is that the carbon dioxide that is being released into the atmosphere from using fossil fuels is a much bigger number than the carbon dioxide that goes into the atmosphere from volcanic activity and from forest fires and brush fires.
I should have been more clear about that, as far as the forest fires and brush fires.
I believe one of the IPCC's policy recommendations is to discourage the clearing of forest land, and especially the burning of forested areas to make way for agriculture or other land uses; but that measure alone, or in concert with other climate mitigations, is not going to be large enough to nullify the strong advisability of achieving a significant reduction in the amount of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. (That's the IPCC's view.)
My statement about "Mother Nature" stands.
If there could be changes in the way that energy is extracted from fossil fuels to eliminate or to sequester the carbon dioxide byproduct, that would eliminate some of the urgency for achieving large reductions in the use of fossil fuels within an aggressive timeline. Or, if there were some way to speed up the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere--some addition to, or some enhancement of the natural processes known as "carbon sinks" that remove CO2 from the atmosphere--to speed up this process so that it would be able to keep pace with the CO2 going into the atmosphere from using fossil fuels--that's another possibility.
I have not excluded the possibility of realizing either of these two ideas (or both) in the effort to avert the most damaging AGW climate scenarios for the remainder of the current century. But these ideas (or other ideas for achieving the same objectives) are clearly outside the scope of what it means to "depend upon Mother Nature". That's why my statement stands.
The fact that the gases--including CO2--that go into the atmosphere from volcanic activity originate from magma reservoirs that are deeper below the earth's surface than any oil or gas wells (or coal mines) is a "So what?" The relevant observation is that the volcanic contribution to CO2 and other greenhouse gases is believed to be small, compared to the amounts that are going into the atmosphere as a byproduct of human activities.
I never say that I can personally "prove" AGW. I "happen" to believe, based on what I have read and viewed, that it is more likely than not, the truth.
Have you ever considered trying your hand with Google or some other search engine? Using searches such as "the volcanic contribution to global warming" or "wildfires and carbon emissions"..? (It could take a certain amount of trial and error on your part--some iterative improvements to your search engine keywords--in order to fien tune your search engine "game".) Have you considered looking at any of the NASA material under the heading of "Why Study Carbon Dioxide?" that I suggested in my post from the day before that started with the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) satellite data? Here's the link again:
http://www.jpl.nasa...press-kit.pdf
Have you ever considered downloading either or both of these documents from the IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis? That would be here:
http://www.climatechange2013.org
The IPCC "SUMMARY FOR POLICY MAKERS" is 28 pages. The "FULL WGI AR5 REPORT" is 1535 pages--too long to read at one sitting, but maybe something you could browse by searching for keywords. These are in PDF format.
Could you be more proactive in terms of a solo effort to enlarge your understanding of what the "other side" or perhaps the "dark side" (in your estimation) is predicting, and how they go about explaining the basis for their predictions? Otherwise, your skepticism is "blind" skepticism. Blind skepticism makes no more sense (to me) than someone who jumps on the AGW bandwagon because it's "trendy" or lends itself to an enjoyable day of making the rounds in town in the psychosocially comfortable embrace of a close-knit peer group and "protesting".
Are you looking for a short and simple explanation of what is clearly a very complicated scenario (AGW) that comes with a long list of "moving parts" (aggravating and mitigating factors) and both short-term and long-term implications for policy makers? Are you looking for an explanation that is contained within no more than two or three paragraphs of "Anglo-Saxon" prose?
That is a profoundly unrealistic expectation that signals that you really need to "go back to the drawing board" in terms of figuring out how to go about the task of acquiring an appropriate level of background information for discussing this issue.
"Anglo-Saxon"
Idiomatic for clearly worded English; usage:
The Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff tore into his own employees for staging a phony news conference at the Federal Emergency Management Agency. "I think it was one of the dumbest and most inappropriate things I've seen since I've been in government," Michael Chertoff said. "I have made unambiguously clear, in Anglo-Saxon prose, that it is not to ever happen again, and there will be appropriate disciplinary action taken against those people who exhibited what I regard as extraordinarily poor judgment."
~ Times Wire Reports; October 28, 2007.Click to show[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-25-2016).]
|
|
|
|
jmclemore
|
APR 26, 03:53 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
What you seem not to grasp is that one of the fundamental "planks" of the AGW "platform" is that the carbon dioxide that is being released into the atmosphere from using fossil fuels is a much bigger number than the carbon dioxide that goes into the atmosphere from volcanic activity and from forest fires and brush fires.
|
|
What you seem not to grasp is that I simply don't believe
it has been proven. I have yet to get a simple explanation.
Instead, when a simple question is asked it is usually meet
with a ton of peripheral factors that someone else used to
draw their conclusion.
I deal with people all day long who are very skilled at turning
a simple answer to a simple question into a lengthy monologue
for no other purpose but to overwhelm the inquirer to the point
of befuddled retreat.
So wouldn't it just be easier to demonstrate the claim that
"Carbon dioxide is a very strong absorber of thermal
infrared energy with wavelengths longer than 12-13
micrometers."
Seriously, I want it to be true.
i can not imagine a more evolutionary transformation of
how the world works, how people live and how power is generated.
That is if, It is true.
So approach me like I'm an average simpleton who has not learned
anything about Global Warming (or what ever it's called today) other
than what I have been told.
If you were trying to help someone to understand who could not read,
or as is the case with many, unable to comprehend that much reading,
how would you demonstrate the founding premise of anthropogenic global
warming which is :
CO2 from fossil fuels are causing the global temperature to increase.
Please tell me if this video is a good example that demonstrates
the CO2 effect on global temperatures.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ
If it does not. please suggest another video with a more
representative demonstration.[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 04-26-2016).]
|
|
|
|
newf
|
APR 26, 05:05 PM
|
|
|
|
|
avengador1
|
APR 26, 09:20 PM
|
|
|
|
|
avengador1
|
APR 28, 11:13 PM
|
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
APR 29, 05:57 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by jmclemore:
If you were trying to help someone to understand who could not read,
or as is the case with many, unable to comprehend that much reading,
how would you demonstrate the founding premise of anthropogenic global
warming which is :
CO2 from fossil fuels are causing the global temperature to increase.
Please tell me if this video is a good example that demonstrates
the CO2 effect on global temperatures.
<snip>
If it does not. please suggest another video with a more
representative demonstration. |
|
Hello all,
I just finished a hospitalization that started Tuesday about noon. This is my first look at the forum since then. I had an infection. Anything more would probably be TMI. I expect to die, but not because of anything related to this episode. And not anytime "soon".
I would call the brief video segment from Mr "jmclemore" a crude, empirical demonstration of the Greenhouse Effect using CO2 from Alka-Seltzer tablets. But I don't like the fact that the guy in the video did not demonstrate convincingly that each bottle was receiving the same amount of illumination from the light source. And I don't like the fact that he dropped the Alka-Seltzer tabs into the water and then stoppered that bottle within seconds (it seems) without demonstrating in any convincing way that the total gas pressure inside the bottles was equal from one bottle to the other. It probably was, since until he stoppered it, the top was open, but still...
The video that "newf" posted in response--from MythBusters--is about the same length (short of four minutes)--and more impressive. They had two control atmospheres, a CO2-enriched atmosphere and a methane-enriched atmosphere. They demonstrated that each "atmosphere" was exposed to the same amount of illumination.
But it wasn't quantitative in any particular way. They didn't report the exact composition of each "atmosphere". I assume that the two controls were just "air". The CO2-enriched atmosphere, they didn't say how much more CO2 (vs air) in terms of ppm or on a percentage basis. And the same as far as the methane-rich atmosphere. I guess maybe if "one" were to find and view that entire MythBusters program, "one" could glean some more details about the experiment. Perhaps.
These are crude, empirical demonstrations of the Greenhouse Effect, that show how elevated levels of atmospheric CO2--and/or methane--could be causing global warming.
This (I hope it goes without saying) is the first "baby step" in terms of understanding what AGW "fans" are saying--leaving aside any thoughts about whether "you" should agree or disagree with any or all of their conclusions and recommendations.[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-29-2016).]
|
|
|
|
jmclemore
|
APR 30, 03:52 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
Hello all,
I just finished a hospitalization that started Tuesday about noon. This is my first look at the forum since then. I had an infection. Anything more would probably be TMI. I expect to die, but not because of anything related to this episode. And not anytime "soon". |
|
Although I am sorry to hear you have been so ill,
I am glad to hear that you are recovering. I do hope
a full and long lasting recovery comes quick for you....
On your observation of each video, thank you for taking the time
to note and share their shortcomings. I acknowledge that the lack
of several data points do not disprove the AGW claim. I was
honestly ready to give you a bit of a hard time, had you quickly
judged the video. You did not, thank you.
But, the videos do show how difficult it is the reproduce the
claim in a control environment. I say "difficult" to credit the
efforts to explain CO2 related AGW because unproven does not
mean disproven.
I quickly dismissed the resulting temperature gains based on
each container's contents, proportions, A capped environment,
heat source and available space for heated gasses to expands.
Again, a bad demonstration is not proof a bad claim.
So,
How, if given the opportunity, would you demonstrate the effect
of CO2 within and environment similar to our atmosphere. Wouldn't
you take a sealed environment and strictly manage the gas types and
quantities, the atmospheric pressure and more importantly the energy
source.
If the claim requires CO2 to heat up when exposed to specific
IR waves and re-emits that heat back into the atmosphere, can't we just
isolate both and reintroduce them with no other gasses or heat sources.
I mean, I can prove microwaves result in melted butter if they are in the
same microwave oven. Can't we do the same with CO2 and Infrared?
It would certainly be convincing to see IR waves causing CO2 to increase
in temperature, then see that heat re-emitted in such a way that it is
reasonable to expect a larger scale would produce a global impact.
|
|
|
|
newf
|
APR 30, 03:15 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
Hello all,
I just finished a hospitalization that started Tuesday about noon. This is my first look at the forum since then. I had an infection. Anything more would probably be TMI. I expect to die, but not because of anything related to this episode. And not anytime "soon".
The video that "newf" posted in response--from MythBusters--is about the same length (short of four minutes)--and more impressive. They had two control atmospheres, a CO2-enriched atmosphere and a methane-enriched atmosphere. They demonstrated that each "atmosphere" was exposed to the same amount of illumination.
But it wasn't quantitative in any particular way. They didn't report the exact composition of each "atmosphere". I assume that the two controls were just "air". The CO2-enriched atmosphere, they didn't say how much more CO2 (vs air) in terms of ppm or on a percentage basis. And the same as far as the methane-rich atmosphere. I guess maybe if "one" were to find and view that entire MythBusters program, "one" could glean some more details about the experiment. Perhaps.
These are crude, empirical demonstrations of the Greenhouse Effect, that show how elevated levels of atmospheric CO2--and/or methane--could be causing global warming.
This (I hope it goes without saying) is the first "baby step" in terms of understanding what AGW "fans" are saying--leaving aside any thoughts about whether "you" should agree or disagree with any or all of their conclusions and recommendations.
|
|
Sorry to hear of your recent health issues, hope you are feeling better.
I posted the Mythbusters video because jmclemore asked for and I quote
| quote | "how would you demonstrate the founding premise of anthropogenic global
warming which is :
CO2 from fossil fuels are causing the global temperature to increase.
Please tell me if this video is a good example that demonstrates
the CO2 effect on global temperatures. If it does not. please suggest another video with a more
representative demonstration."
|
|
Seems like he asked for a basic experiment showing the correlation of C02 level in air to temperature increase but is now saying it's too simplistic. Anyways there are plenty of organizations that have shown these experiments to be true all he need do is look and ask them if he is unwilling to believe any third party.
Or I suppose I can try again....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4YSwajvFAY[This message has been edited by newf (edited 04-30-2016).]
|
|
|
|