 
     |
| The evidence against anthropogenic global warming (Page 572/600) |
|
avengador1
|
MAY 14, 09:03 PM
|
|
|
|
|
IMSA GT
|
MAY 14, 09:08 PM
|
|
|
Going on almost 144 pages and we'll all be dead before any of this global warming bullshit really matters.
|
|
|
|
jmclemore
|
MAY 15, 01:43 AM
|
|
Infrared radiation vs visible sun light. IR-Radiation is present day or night , sun light or shade.
If I understand this correctly, wouldn't it be better to track night time temperatures to measure the "effect" of co2 on global temperatures.
Also, wouldn't make more sense to track our average low temps to verify a sustained trend of increasing temperatures.
Wouldn't be easier to determine an expected temperature drop rate based on the daily high temperature?
I mean, if we can calculate the drop in water temperature after having been boiled to show how long it should take to return to room temp, would tracking night time low temps and how long they took to drop, show the effect of CO2 on the environment?[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 05-15-2016).]
|
|
|
|
jmclemore
|
MAY 15, 03:41 AM
|
|
Absorbed? or Deflected?
I've seen this video used many times to prove that
CO2 absorbs IR Radiation. But it's does nothing to
demonstrate CO2 causing an increase in temperature
inside the tube. If CO2 can cause temperatures to rise,
couldn't if be proven by taking 2 tubes, fill one with CO2
and the other Air. Make sure the are the same pressure
and track the temperature of the tubes as the lay out in
the sun.[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 05-15-2016).]
|
|
|
|
jmclemore
|
MAY 15, 04:53 AM
|
|
This one has 2 jars with thermometers in the jar.
co2 is added to 1 jar with heat lamps shinning on both jars.
It seems like this is a simple experiment.
The problem
Both jars should have been measured with identical conditions
Leaving the lid open on 1 and closing the other makes it really
hard to compare the results because it changed the pressure inside
the jar as heat is applied.
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
MAY 15, 01:43 PM
|
|
| quote | | Originally posted by jmclemore: |
|
I have some other spheroids to juggle and worse than that, my computer is barely working. So I cannot go searching for "stuff" online that would be a direct answer to your latest question(s). But, if you are thinking that what happens during nights has somehow slipped through the cracks or has not been given sufficient attention by climate researchers, I think that idea can be dismissed.
I used Adobe Reader to do some keyword searches on the 1535 pages of the IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis.
The word "night" or "nights" is used 134 times. The phrase "warm nights" is used 26 times. Check out these screen captures:
 [This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-15-2016).]
|
|
|
|
jmclemore
|
MAY 15, 05:07 PM
|
|
The temperature drop from sun down to sun up would reflect the effect of co2 on temperatures by showing lower rate of cooling.
CO2 and Infrared Radiation are still present in the absences of sun light. If CO2 , as claimed , reduces the troposphere's cooling efficency, then CO2 would be causing our low temperature average to increase. That should be easily determined through the temperature record.
So, even if CO2 does contribute to increases in surface temperatures, what would the night time average temperature be without the influence of CO2.
Not that I believe CO2 contributes to warming, but if it does that would support the idea that CO2 also reduces cooling. IF that is the case , I'm reminded that there is no free lunch and the small amount of warming could be offsatting the amount of cooling.
Not that I believe that CO2 in our atmoshpere produces temperature increases.
But if it does, which would be worse a gradual rise in temperature or a gradual fall. I would think that either over time would be bad, eventually.
|
|
|
|
Mickey_Moose
|
MAY 16, 02:14 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
"wildfires and carbon emissions"
|
|
| quote | In the fight against climate change, forests play a critical role — drawing more greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere than they emit.
But when they burn, much of those stored gases are released back into the atmosphere.
So far, the fires in Fort McMurray have released the equivalent of roughly five per cent of Canada’s annual greenhouse gas emissions, said Werner Kurz, a senior research scientist with the Canadian Forest Service in charge of Canada’s National Forest Carbon Accounting System.
The average emissions from forest fires in the boreal plains, where the northern Alberta fires are burning, are about 170 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents per hectare, Kurz said.
Multiply that by 239, 390 hectares, the size of the Fort McMurray fire on May 11, and the fire has already released about 41 megatonnes of CO2 equivalents in the form of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. |
|
http://edmontonjournal.com/...es-greenhouse-gasses
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
MAY 16, 05:05 PM
|
|
Is there a plan to have a forest fire as large as the Fort McMurray fire in Canada each and every year?
When the burned out areas around Fort McMurray are recognized by new vegetation during the coming years, some of the CO2 that was released by the forest fires will be removed from the atmosphere by the growing shrubs and seedling trees. CO2 was released from the Fort McMurray area as the fires burned. CO2 will be reabsorbed by the Fort McMurray area as new plant life takes hold and grows. That's a closed loop carbon cycle. It is not going to burden the atmosphere with more CO2 to the same extent as it would have been to add the same amount of CO2 to the atmosphere by using coal, oil or natural gas.
The processes of fossil fuels mining and drilling--unlike the Fort McMurray forest fire--mostly do not open up areas for plant life to recolonize and recapture CO2, and beyond that, finished fossil fuels that are ready for use are dense in carbon and the combustion processes for extracting energy from fossil fuels are designed to consume as much of the fuel--and as a consequence, release as much of the fossil carbon in the form of CO2--as possible. It's not like a forest fire, which leaves behind a lot of charred wood that wasn't completely burned. (That's carbon that wasn't released as CO2 during the forest fire.)
Mickey_Moose is a man of many faces, like this one:
Is that hubris?
Progress Toward Canada's Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Target (April 27, 2016)
https://www.ec.gc.ca/indica...lang=en&n=CCED3397-1[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-16-2016).]
|
|
|
|
jmclemore
|
MAY 16, 10:51 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
Is there a plan to have a forest fire as large as the Fort McMurray fire in Canada each and every year?
When the burned out areas around Fort McMurray are recognized by new vegetation during the coming years, some of the CO2 that was released by the forest fires will be removed from the atmosphere by the growing shrubs and seedling trees. CO2 was released from the Fort McMurray area as the fires burned. CO2 will be reabsorbed by the Fort McMurray area as new plant life takes hold and grows. That's a closed loop carbon cycle. It is not going to burden the atmosphere with more CO2 to the same extent as it would have been to add the same amount of CO2 to the atmosphere by using coal, oil or natural gas.
The processes of fossil fuels mining and drilling--unlike the Fort McMurray forest fire--mostly do not open up areas for plant life to recolonize and recapture CO2, and beyond that, finished fossil fuels that are ready for use are dense in carbon and the combustion processes for extracting energy from fossil fuels are designed to consume as much of the fuel--and as a consequence, release as much of the fossil carbon in the form of CO2--as possible. It's not like a forest fire, which leaves behind a lot of charred wood that wasn't completely burned. (That's carbon that wasn't released as CO2 during the forest fire.)
Mickey_Moose is a man of many faces, like this one:
Is that hubris?
Progress Toward Canada's Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Target (April 27, 2016)
https://www.ec.gc.ca/indica...lang=en&n=CCED3397-1
|
|
CO2 is CO2
no matter the source.
There are no subspecies of CO2 that are less absorbable than
the others. Prior to a forest fire, no matter the size of the burn,
the trees and plants all absorbed CO2 from the environment.
When that forest burns, it ceases to absorb carbon and becomes
a contributor of it. The CO2 gain is twofold. first you have an increase
of CO2 as a result of reduced absorption and 2nd the additional carbon
produce by the burning forest. The regrowth of planet life, even if quick,
will not return to it's previous rate of CO2 absorption for decades and in
terms of trees maybe longer. And during that recovery period a CO2
absorption deficit creates a bottle-neck in the system. The result is a
magnification of the so called CO2 problem. The closed loop argument
is nothing more than a closed mind locked in a loop of rhetoric to protect
a ridiculous idea.
The claim that CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels are some how
floating around in our atmosphere without a viable loop while naturally
produced CO2 has a smooth path, makes no sense unless we are talking
about 2 different forms of CO2 and the one created by combustion of
fossil fuels, are apparently anti-gravitic, non-soluble and unaborbable
by plants. 
Likewise the claim that volcanic discharges into the atmosphere is
some how less detrimental to the environment than CO2 release by
automobiles and industry emissions closer to the ground is as laughable.
Volcanoes like forest fires do not improve the situation. No matter how much
regrowth occurs afterwards, it does not square the amount of unabsorbed
CO2 cause by a disruption of the loop/carbon cycle efficiency. Unless, CO2
from fossil fuels are some how different from CO2 produced by and other
burning method.
There is no amount of data/records that will sufficiently differentiate between
CO2 sources to prove a disproportionate affect due to fossil fuels without
first demonstrating a difference between CO2 molecules in such a way to
explain how they can perform or behave differently without a difference in
molecular structure. Which would mean that one of them is not CO2......
|
|
|
|