Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CO2 not the culprit of Green House warming?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    CO2 not the culprit of Green House warming?

    https://www.omicsonline.org/open-acc...ture-Model.pdf

    It's heavy in math...
    Abstract

    A recent study has revealed that the Earth’s natural atmospheric greenhouse effect is around 90 K or about 2.7 times stronger than assumed for the past 40 years. A thermal enhancement of such a magnitude cannot be explained with the observed amount of outgoing infrared long-wave radiation absorbed by the atmosphere (i.e. ≈ 158 W m-2), thus requiring a re-examination of the underlying Greenhouse theory.

    We present here a new investigation into the physical nature of the atmospheric thermal effect using a novel empirical approach toward predicting the Global Mean Annual near-surface equilibrium Temperature (GMAT) of rocky planets with diverse atmospheres. Our method utilizes Dimensional Analysis (DA) applied to a vetted set of observed data from six celestial bodies representing a broad range of physical environments in our Solar System, i.e. Venus, Earth, the Moon, Mars, Titan (a moon of Saturn), and Triton (a moon of Neptune). Twelve relationships (models) suggested by DA are explored via non-linear regression analyses that involve dimensionless products comprised of solar irradiance, greenhouse-gas partial pressure/density and total atmospheric pressure/density as forcing variables, and two temperature ratios as dependent variables. One non-linear regression model is found to statistically outperform the rest by a wide margin. Our analysis revealed that GMATs of rocky planets with tangible atmospheres and a negligible geothermal surface heating can accurately be predicted over a broad range of conditions using only two forcing variables: top-of-the-atmosphere solar irradiance and total surface atmospheric pressure. The hereto discovered interplanetary pressure-temperature relationship is shown to be statistically robust while describing a smooth physical continuum without climatic tipping points. This continuum fully explains the recently discovered 90 K thermal effect of Earth’s atmosphere. The new model displays characteristics of an emergent macro-level thermodynamic relationship heretofore unbeknown to science that has important theoretical implications. A key entailment from the model is that the atmospheric ‘greenhouse effect’ currently viewed as a radiative phenomenon is in fact an adiabatic (pressure-induced) thermal enhancement analogous to compression heating and independent of atmospheric composition. Consequently, the global down-welling long-wave flux presently assumed to drive Earth’s surface warming appears to be a product of the air temperature set by solar heating and atmospheric pressure. In other words, the so-called ‘greenhouse back radiation’ is globally a result of the atmospheric thermal effect rather than a cause for it. Our empirical model has also fundamental implications for the role of oceans, water vapour, and planetary albedo in global climate. Since produced by a rigorous attempt to describe planetary temperatures in the context of a cosmic continuum using an objective analysis of vetted observations from across the Solar System, these findings call for a paradigm shift in our understanding of the atmospheric‘greenhouse effect’ as a fundamental property of climate.
    Translation: Global warming, OR cooling, isn't just an effect of the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere.

    On a side note, snow fell in Canada in August, not a common occurrence below 60 deg lat.
    https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ne...alberta/85126/
    Last edited by GreyGeek; Aug 25, 2017, 02:02 PM.
    "A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”
    – John F. Kennedy, February 26, 1962.

    #2
    Omics Publishing Group is a predatory publisher. I could send them a paper that says the moon is made of cheese and they would publish it if I paid their fee...there is no (scientific or peer) review.

    I'm definitely not saying the "study" is complete garbage wrapped in fancy words and cool formulas (as I haven't got time to read it), but one should use caution when dealing with papers published by omics.

    Comment


      #3
      I don't think that the BBC is a "predatory publisher". and was certainly a vocal advocate of "global warming" this interview done by the BBC was published all over in the Daily Mail in Britain, never published here and then forgotten.

      And besides...if "center" is spelled "centre" then it HAS to be correct, valid, beyond reproach and generally up to snuff.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...organised.html

      THE GLOBAL WARMING GUY.. Phil Jones..

      said that there has been no "significant global warming" since...1995

      and...that...he..."lost" his data because he is just...messy...

      and ran a multimillion dollar operation that ...

      a) erased the only hard drive with data
      b) formatted the only hard drive with data
      c) lost the only hard drive with data

      Have we herd this in the last couple of years in another context?

      Apparently a multimillion pound operation had a staff that:

      a) never heard of a usb drive
      b) never heard of a cd rom or a cdrw
      c) never heard of an external backup hard drive

      Have we heard exactly the same thing in another context just in the last few years?

      Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

      The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

      Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.

      Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

      And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
      The man has been transferred to a non-position and this was in the HEYDAY of the "global warming" version of the latest "sky is falling" thinking by the people "who believe everybody else".,

      He didn't "stand down" he was "Peter Principled" down ...and is still down there...

      https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/...ist-steps-down

      This is kind of a "summary article"...but Jones "removed the data" from COLD areas of the world, Gobi Desert ( because the data is questionable according to Jones, and from Canada for the same reason) But then ADDED a sensor on top of the Kilauea volcano...

      hmmmm so REMOVING sensors that show cold temperatures and adding sensors that show "hot data"...

      and the "temperature" somehow...went up, in the space of a year.

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/...ing-worldwide/

      I have followed this since my days at Xandros there were literally hundreds of e-mails to Jones that were cc/d to various scientists BEGGING and then STERNLY ASKING for him to produce his data.

      I will ASK ONE QUESTION.

      Think...THINK of what is SAID... when talking heads on t.v. say..."THE TEMPERATURE IS THE HIGHEST IN RECORDED HISTORY".

      WHAT...does "recorded history" mean?

      It means temperatures recorded ON PAPER, not in the ice records not in the coral layers records not in the tree ring records it means recorded ON PAPER...

      and when did this start?

      Umm the Maunder Minimum when the Thames River was frozen over and towns were literally built on the ice and when Hans Brinker and the Silver Skates was written because the RIVERS WERE FROZEN OVER...

      DUE TO SUNSPOT ACTIVITY...

      The LITTLE ICE AGE...which has been OMITTED FROM ALL SECONDARY TEXTBOOKs...

      Notice also that when the Knights were jousting...IN LONDON...that the temperature was TWO DEGREES HIGHER THAN NOW...and London was doing just fine...

      not underwater...nobody growing gills or fins...just jousting and drinking mead.



      cities built on the ice because of the Little Ice Age and the temperature was recorded and has been RISING ever since..



      The reason that Hans was skating with his WOODEN skates is because...they didn't NEED skates all that much before the LITTLE ICE AGE...

      he "saves the girl" and father gives him some silver skates..



      : Hans Brinker; or, the Silver Skates: A Story of Life in Holland) is a novel by American author Mary Mapes Dodge, first published in 1865

      The story would have been laughingly REJECTED by the publishers if the PUBLISHERS had not SEEN the canals FROZEN OVER...

      Ok what about...the ARCTIC IS GOING AWAY...it is MELTING...MELTING...

      ummm no...

      it has melted MANY TIMES BEFORE...

      That...is why Hudson NOT TAUGHT IN SCHOOL ANY MORE...

      was trying to sail through the NORTHWEST PASSAGE...

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage

      Ummmm take a look at the DATE...written on the POSTCARD sent by a SAILOR who was not a student, for or against, "global warming'.



      Ok...so "how" did "global warming" "get started"?

      A scientist by the name of Tyndall in 1850's was researching gasses in the atomosphere made a guess about Carbon Dioxide and the "greenhouse effect" and GUESSED that if there was more CO2 then the temps might increase. it was dismissed, other workers made a similar guess. dismissed in the 1950's scientists found that CO2 was increasing. That is NOT something that is in question, the "question" is what the effect is.

      Margarat Thatcher was running for re-election and had real problems with the "Green Party" so she told her campaign people to look around for something that she could campaign on.

      Her main man on this was ORIGINALLY A GLOBAL COOLING GUY...but...hey...that didn't pan out...

      so he became a BELIEVER of "global warming"...

      Margarat Thatcher pumped money into the research and HADCRUT...they have changed the abbreviation to CRU so now

      WHEN ONE SEARCHES ON THE NET...GOOGLE...ooops...no HADCRUT in THAT search I'll just return the MODERN stuff...CRU...

      Well, when big money is available the college profs and scientists come running with hat held out... and HADCRUT was born and Phil Jones was in charge...

      Phis was making money hand over fist, had hundreds of employees and had to COME UP WITH SOMETHING...

      Certainly, Mrs Thatcher was the first world leader to voice alarm over global warming, back in 1988, With her scientific background, she had fallen under the spell of Sir Crispin Tickell, then our man at the UN. In the 1970s, he had written a book warning that the world was cooling, but he had since become an ardent convert to the belief that it was warming, Under his influence, as she recorded in her memoirs, she made a series of speeches, in Britain and to world bodies, calling for urgent international action, and citing evidence given to the US Senate by the arch-alarmist Jim Hansen, head of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

      She found equally persuasive the views of a third prominent convert to the cause, Dr John Houghton, then head of the UK Met Office. She backed him in the setting up of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988, and promised the Met Office lavish funding for its Hadley Centre, which she opened in 1990, as a world authority on "human-induced climate change".

      Hadley then linked up with East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) to become custodians of the most prestigious of the world's surface temperature records (alongside another compiled by Dr Hansen). This became the central nexus of influence driving a worldwide scare over global warming; and so it remains to this day – not least thanks to the key role of Houghton (now Sir John) in shaping the first three mammoth reports which established the IPCC's unequalled authority on the subject.

      In bringing this about, Mrs Thatcher played an important part. It is not widely appreciated, however, that there was a dramatic twist to her story. In 2003, towards the end of her last book, Statecraft, in a passage headed "Hot Air and Global Warming", she issued what amounts to an almost complete recantation of her earlier views.
      What is HILARIOUS...is that LATER Margaret Thatcher said that global warming was...all hot air!

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...e-sceptic.html

      So Phil and Dr. Mann then come up with the famous hocky stick graph...however...

      Scientists from the UNITED STATES PHYSICAL SCIENCE UNION...showed that since there were '

      SIXTEEN VARIABLES...that is ( 16 ) SIXTEEN variables in the equation..

      One of the following is the "supposed data" and the other five are just random numbers.



      REMEMBER WE DO NOT HAVE THE ORIGINAL DATA...it was...lost...

      These highly qualified MATHEMATICIANS said that they ran SPURIOUS DATA SETS through the equation and all sets of spurious data produced the hockey stick...the hockey stick GRAPH is BUILT INTO THE EQUATION ITSELF:

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/...isled-a-court/

      THE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change...at a conference BURIED IN ASIA...and not reported in the U.S. said...

      ummm no global warming and they have NO WAY TO PREDICT LONG TERM

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/...5-final-draft/

      And the poor polar bears...that Obama DElisted much to his GREAT CHAGRIN...he was SCORNED by the greenies...

      The polar bears are doing just fine AND INCREASING... notice that this is from the POLAR BEAR INSTITUTE...



      https://polarbearscience.com/2015/05...pbsg-waffling/

      SEA LEVEL?

      this Tasmanian Sea...MARK was made in the stone and it is for MEAN SEA LEVEL... a hundred and fifty years ago...notice...the...ummm DRY LAND UNDERNEATH?



      https://www.john-daly.com/

      ATOLLS SINKING BECAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!!!

      What is the SALIENT word in that...ummm SINKING!!!

      YES...they ARE SINKING..."going down"... BELOW THE SEA...SINKING...

      Because they ROSE in the past and are now SINKING...

      nothing to do with temperature they are just SINKING...

      NEW SCIENTIST BTW IS A DISTINCTLY LIBERAL science magazine...

      Please READ the article with a "jaundiced eye"...the incredible tortuous wandering around and bringing in this and that and everything buy that a cow kicked over the lantern...that "this could happen or that could happen" but right in the middle of it...the water is not RISING UP...

      The islands are sinking, after growing, and after sinking and after growing...

      https://www.newscientist.com/article...a-levels-rise/

      So... whoever wants to BELIEVE in global warming...that is ok...go right ahead because the planet is going to keep on going on and the politicians will still screw us so that they can get local street cred and MONEY MONEY MONEY...

      But all I am doing here is posting what is on the net...take it or leave it...

      But...one last thing..."global warming" was at the beginnings of Env Sci Books when I first started teaching college Env Sci and it was prominent in the biogeochemical cycle section of the standard biology text.

      About ten years ago... it started slowly sliding BACK TO THE END OF THE BOOK...

      and has now fallen OUT OF THE BOOK...

      Because of what I posted ABOVE...which I have been following and posting for years... the head of the department took a look at the whole thing ...and...

      without advocating "for or against"...got in one of the "American Physical Science Union" guys to explain "just what they found out"...to "any biology faculty who wanted to meet this guy a local bistro, dinner paid by the department.

      I was quietly told to "be conspicuous by my absence"..

      And, the next exams global warming was dropped, replaced with climate change, and two cycles later is it is all gone and our present textbook has NONE of it.

      So...anyway...If Xandros was still around... one could see the SAME posts, the same links... ONLY IN THE US political and talking head scene is this still a big deal...because it is all about local street cred.

      woodsmoke
      Last edited by woodsmoke; Aug 25, 2017, 04:14 PM.

      Comment


        #4
        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...y-were-caught/

        The withdrawn study “is just a curve-fitting exercise of five data points using four free parameters and as many functional forms as they could think of,” Schmidt, an expert in atmospheric climate modeling, said in an email. Like the previous pseudonymous research, “it too has nothing fundamental to add.”

        He added, “The authors’ insistence that they are ‘contradicting mainstream theory’ is just delusional self-aggrandizement.”
        https://earthscience.stackexchange.c...th-the-agw-ghg

        Conclusion

        Well I wrote a lot there, and hopefully it is all comprehensible. All in all, there are some interesting bits to Nikolov and Zeller's approach, but I think they are over simplifying some things and are using a non-physical science applicable methodology to obtain questionable conclusions.
        Honestly, I don't think that anyone should be treating their research pejoratively (I'm looking at you Andrew Jon Dodds in the comments). It is interesting, and it is certainly novel (from everything I've read). It just doesn't have great conclusions. And that's fine! Most research probably doesn't lead anywhere useful. At least they tried something. People seem to be mad at them just because the results are contrary to the general climate change consensus. Research should be appraised on its merits (or lack thereof) and not on whether its conclusions match preconceptions.
        http://www.nationalgeographic.com/en...-warming-real/

        For a direct look at the atmosphere of the past, scientists drill cores through the Earth's polar ice sheets. Tiny bubbles trapped in the gas are actually pieces of the Earth's past atmosphere, frozen in time. That's how we know that the concentrations of greenhouse gases since the industrial revolution are higher than they've been for hundreds of thousands of years.
        and on and on,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

        VINNY
        i7 4core HT 8MB L3 2.9GHz
        16GB RAM
        Nvidia GTX 860M 4GB RAM 1152 cuda cores

        Comment


          #5
          Hi I edited my post with more examples of things that are just wrong and that have not been reported in the U.S.

          But
          Vinny wrote:

          since the industrial revolution are higher than they've been for hundreds of thousands of years.
          That statement is EXACTLY CORRECT...EXACTLY CORRECT...but the more important thing is...

          WHAT IS REALLY being said?

          what is REALLY being said is temperatures are higher than thousands of years ago...because the temperature has gone up, and down, and up and down...

          But they SPEAKER KNOWS...that "people" will "just accept it"... and not question... it...

          YES the temparature IS GOING UP...and then it will go down and then it will go up...

          it is now "In a Pause"... the "top of the wave"...and the next "volcano" that erupts and it will go DOWN...

          and we are now going UP...from the influence of MULTIPLE VOLCANOES ERUPTING;



          Here is the effect of the Krakatoa explosion half a world away...



          http://www.skyandtelescope.com/press...ng-the-scream/

          When Mt Tambora exploded it produced "the year without a summer" and the earth's temps PLUMMETED...

          only to rise again...

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer



          In Chinchester Canal by painted by Turner, the effect of the Tamburo volcano half a world away.

          https://www.earthmagazine.org/articl...n-fire-and-ash

          All of the Flemish Painters, particularly Pieter Bruegel the Elder provide factual information...they did not know about "global warming"...they merely recorded what they saw in their art.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pieter_Bruegel_the_Elder

          His winter landscapes of 1565, like The Hunters in the Snow, are taken as corroborative evidence of the severity of winters during the Little Ice Age.


          So...when talking heads say that the temperature is "the highest it has ever been in recorded history"...they are correct...

          And, when talking heads say that the temperature is "the highest it has ever been"...they are correct...

          But it has nothing to do with global warming it has everything to do with sunspots and volcanoes.

          woodsmoke
          Last edited by woodsmoke; Aug 25, 2017, 04:37 PM.

          Comment


            #6
            "But it has nothing to do with global warming"

            I think most scientist would disagree with you on that .

            and I for one would not like to see that attitude coalescing into the firring back up of full scale interest in "dirty"energy and abandoning the search for and adoption of clean energy .

            VINNY
            i7 4core HT 8MB L3 2.9GHz
            16GB RAM
            Nvidia GTX 860M 4GB RAM 1152 cuda cores

            Comment


              #7
              On and on indeed:
              “There is no doubt that trying to publish research results, which do not conform to accepted theories or mainstream beliefs, poses a challenge in today’s world of academic political correctness,” Nikolov said. “This is not just our experience, and it is not just happening in climate science.”
              He UNDERSTATED the problem. "Climate Change" (and when has the climate never changed?) is now equivalent to Lysenkoism and its primary goal is "Carbon Credits", which how Gore made his millions, a form of dialectal materialism. It has become impossible for any reputable scientist to get any paper published which doesn't support climate change, and there are plenty of reputable scientists who do not believe the science proves that man is the cause of "climate change". And, most research is now driven by government funding and gov bureaucrats only fund pro climate change papers.

              "Closed access" (pay per view) publishers publish junk papers as well. The big critic of this paper was Gavin A. Schmidt. Before you accept his word as gold you should search for his name and comments among the 2009 & 2011 FOIA emails released by a whistle blower. Start with the "HARRY-README.TXT file and search for the profanity in it and you'll see the state of the database that the 1987 Hockey Stick paper was written on.

              Current research and AGW predictions are based on about a dozen computer models, the average of which are used to make the predictions of Earth's temperature for the next 100 years. There is one big problem with this approach. Attempts to model the behavior of the weather using mathematical models resulted in the discovery of what is now a branch of mathematics called Chaos and the weather model itself produced a graph which looks similar to the wings of a butterfly. The "Butterfly Effect" - a Buttryfly flapping its wings in Kansas can produce a Tornado in Japan. Or, stated more formally, tiny changes in the input can produce wild and unpredictably large changes in the output. Or, put another way, weather, or climate, cannot be predicted with any accuracy more than a week or two into the future.

              Schmitd and the other schemers claim their work is an extension of that of Dr. Edward Lorenz, the discoverer of the Butterfly Effect in 1963. In a 2007 interview he stated the following:

              The first thing I would say is that current (2007) numerical prediction output are much better than I ever thought they would be at this time. I wasn't sure they would ever get as good as they are now-certainly not within my lifetime. So, this makes me think that they can become still better and makes me hopeful that we may actually get good forecasts a couple of weeks ahead some time. I still don't hold much hope for day-to-day forecasting a month ahead.
              Meteorologists use a dozen or so computer models today to predict the weather in their areas, but they rarely take those predictions beyond 7 days. Why is that, if predictions of future temperatures can be made for 100 years in the future? That's because they can't. Gavin Schmidt was the guy who, in an email with a green peace guy, discussed their "agenda", spreading America's wealth to other countries.


              Dr Judith Curry, retired head of the Climate Science Department of the Georgia Institute of Technology, called the current climate of Climate Science "crazy".
              In announcing her retirement, Curry wrote about what she called her "growing disenchantment with universities, the academic field of climate science and scientists." She said a deciding factor for leaving the ivory tower was that "I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science," adding that research and funding for it are highly politicized.
              She also addresses the fatal flaw in the underlying assumption of the research process established by the UN IPCC:
              ... which simply assumed without establishing scientific evidence that anthropogenic activity was driving “global warming” (which was subsequently modified to “climate change” after the global temperature “pause”).

              ...she noted the failures of climate models to address pre 1950 natural climate variation – “If science can’t explain climate shifts pre 1950, how can we trust today’s climate models?
              The pause is still pausing. This is only the second August since records began that the temperature in Nebraska never reached 90F. The average is 87 but one could always count on at least one or two days during the first or second week of August reaching 90-95F.

              When I was doing research in anti-cancer metabolites in graduate school the spirit of science was to formulate an hypothesis based on existing data, design and experiment to prove the hypothesis WRONG, collect data to test the null hypothesis, rinse and repeat. Collecting data to prove an hypothesis right can only be done by cooking, trimming or making up data out of whole cloth. The Climate Research Unit is guilty of all of three sins of science. They cooked the hockey stick data using red noise. They trimmed the ridge cone pine tree ring data by selecting only 50 of the over 450 trees because those trees fit their model. Trees 50 feet away did not. They made up the temperature data by throwing OUT all of the 1960 to 1987 and later raw temperature measurements and replaced them with numbers they arbitrarily created based on what would fit their models the best.

              When the 2009 FOIA zip file was released CNN put Al Gore in front of the camera to ask him about it. His statement "Those emails are ten years old and have no relevant information in them." While he was saying that I was looking through 117 emails that were dated only a week before the zip file was released.
              Last edited by GreyGeek; Aug 25, 2017, 07:31 PM.
              "A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”
              – John F. Kennedy, February 26, 1962.

              Comment


                #8
                well we will never SEE for ourselves ,,,,,,,,,especially those of us over 50 ,,,,,,,that's me as well ,,,,but I still do not like pollution .

                VINNY
                i7 4core HT 8MB L3 2.9GHz
                16GB RAM
                Nvidia GTX 860M 4GB RAM 1152 cuda cores

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by vinnywright View Post
                  well we will never SEE for ourselves ,,,,,,,,,especially those of us over 50 ,,,,,,,that's me as well ,,,,but I still do not like pollution .

                  VINNY
                  I do not like pollution either, but CO2 is not pollution.

                  It is a gas created by a variety of natural processes: volcanoes, forest and grassland fires and you and I just living. Green plants on land and plankton in the waters absorb CO2 and water and use Sun light to change them into sugar and Oxygen. We breath that Oxygen and consume that sugar to power our bodies so we can have the energy to do the things that we must do in order to live. Within the Mitochondria of our cells the Oxygen is combined with CO2 to produce Adenosine Triphosphate, the fuel that powers the cells of our body. The waste products are CO2 and water. We and green plants are in a symbiotic relationship.

                  Many kinds of bacteria use Oxygen and sugar as well and create CO2 and water. Some bacteria create Methane instead. Methane is a powerful green house gas. Urea in urine from people, cows and other animals often are converted by bacteria into Ammonia, another powerful green house gas. Within the four stomachs of a cow are similar bacteria which produce Methane which the cow releases as flatulence. While Methane and CO2 are green house gases, the most powerful green house gas in the atmosphere is water vapor. That's right, water is seven times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2. And, while CO2 is present at only 400 ppm (parts per million), that's only 0.04% of the total atmospheric gases. Methane isn't even that high. Ammonia is too reactive to remain in the atmosphere for any length of time. And, lets ignore the oxides of Nitrogen created during thunderstorms. While they are absorbed by rain and fall to earth as nitrites which fertilize the soil, while in the atmosphere they, too, are green house gases.

                  CO2 forms Carbonic Acid when dissolved in water (the fiz in softdrinks). Carbonic Acid falls to the earth in rain drops and becomes part of the streams and rivers leading to the ocean. ALL water solutions of dissolved salts are in equilibrium, which is determined by the pK value (ionization constant) of water. pK of H + pK of OH = pK H20 = 14.0 Water in the ocean obeys the same pK relationship. When CO2 is absorbed into the ocean water the pK H of the water shifts toward the pK value of Carbonic Acid. This causes calcium in limestone, shells, coral, etc... to be dissolved, which restores the pK value of water to a higher level. The ocean is a complicated solution. It's pH (the concentration of the Hydrogen ion) has been 8.2. Now, it is 8.1. It is slightly basic. Many believe that the 0.1 drop is due to an increase in the amount of CO2 dissolved in the Ocean. However, oxides of Nitrogen has contributed to that decrease. So has sulfuric acid released from volcanoes around the world. The floor of the ocean along the ridge lines separating geologic plates is riddled with "smokers", mineral towers from which shoot super heated water containing highly dissolved gases of Carbon, Sulfur, Phosphorus and elements.

                  Lastly, even if the world's temperature were to rise 0.2F in the next 50 years there is next to nothing we can do about it. The cost of holding the world's temperature to its present value would consume the GDP of all the the countries of the world. 19 Trillion dollars is the number bandied about. You would have to give up your electric power and everything it powers. Then your carbon fuels and everything it powers. No lights, computers, TV's, heat, cars, airplanes, etc... Even your food. Modern farming is just a way of using land to convert oil into food. It takes 7 times more oil energy to bring a slice of toast to your breakfast table than you get when you eat it. Can 9 billion people revert to an 18th century economy and survive? No. Probably 8 billion of them would die in the process because an 18th century economy on this planet can support only about 1 billion people.

                  Even now, the under developed countries are clamoring for what makes us a "developed" country. Oil. The more oil they get the more CO2 will be produced. We are at 400 ppm CO2. There was a time in Earth's history when the CO2 levels were 800 ppm. Green plants flourished. So did the animals which ate them. But don't worry. The problem will solve itself. At our present rate of consumption, which will surely increase, we have only about 50 years of oil left. Or, 50 years to switch to an alternative form of energy. The only viable one is Solar. We certainly don't want to foul the nest with radiation from fission or fusion reactors.
                  Last edited by GreyGeek; Aug 25, 2017, 09:33 PM.
                  "A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”
                  – John F. Kennedy, February 26, 1962.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Vinny wrote:

                    I think most scientist would disagree with you on that .
                    IN TERMS OF...what is "said" by "talking heads" in the media, paid by the tax dollars of the U.S. as consultants to politicians or the "media" talking heads"...what is SAID..."seems" to be "valid"

                    HOWEVER...as Walter Winchell used to say...now..."the rest of the story".

                    That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 80 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.
                    EXCEPT...no... the "number" is a 'SUBSET" of a SUBSET of "responding" scientists... as will be shown by the quotes below...

                    BUT to save the gentle reader from actually READING WHAT WAS

                    SURVEYED...

                    here is a summary:

                    And according to a study of 1,868 scientists working in climate-related fields,

                    conducted just this year by the PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency, three in ten respondents

                    said that less than half of global warming since 1951 could be attributed to human activity,

                    or that they did not know.
                    HERE IS THE FULL STATEMENT

                    The “97 percent” statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.” A year later, William R. Love Anderegg, a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to determine that “97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” The sample size did not much improve on Zimmerman and Doran’s: Anderegg surveyed about 200 scientists.
                    From the National Review a RESPECTED. but MIDDLE OF THE ROAD...magazine that is BOTH print and online...

                    http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ion-ian-tuttle

                    IN OTHER WORDS...THE "statement" which was "requoted" WRONG...and AMPLIFIED and "requoted WRONG"...was.,

                    less than one...that is ONE percent "of scientists"... who said that...

                    "humans have affected the climate"...

                    THIS IS ALL SUCH CRAPPOLA AND ...restating of what somebody said that somebody said that somebody said...

                    that it is LUDICROUS...

                    AND STILL THE U.S. MEDIA and TALKING HEADS AND DEMOCRAT POLITICIANS...

                    KNOWINGLY

                    or UNknowingly

                    PARROT...this BOGUS number...

                    woodaaarrrgghhsmoke


                    Surely the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded.
                    Studies showing a wider range of opinion often go unremarked. A 2008 survey by two German scientists, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, found that a significant number of scientists were skeptical of the ability of existing global climate models to accurately predict global temperatures, precipitation, sea-level changes, or extreme weather events even over a decade; they were far more skeptical as the time horizon increased. Most did express concerns about global warming and a desire for “immediate action to mitigate climate change” — but not 97 percent.
                    Last edited by woodsmoke; Aug 25, 2017, 10:32 PM.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X