There's nothing fundamentally wrong with a warmed Earth ... / General Chatting / Forums

Forums

4hv.org :: Forums :: General Chatting

« Previous topic | Next topic »

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with a warmed Earth ...

previous 1 2 3

Move Thread

LAN_403

Uspring

Tue Apr 15 2014, 06:33PM

Registered Member #3988 Joined: Thu Jul 07 2011, 03:25PM
Location:
Posts: 711

Hi Dan, you wrote:

Unfortunately, the debate over climate change is not really scientific at all. Yes, data collected and trends collected are based on scientific measurements, but in the end, its conclusions and how the data is interpreted is purely political and ideological.

I tend to agree that much of that discussion is politically influenced.
Couldn't that be discussed as if we're talking about global warming on Mars or Venus? And keep the scientific issue on whether there is a problem separate from the political one, i.e. what to do about it, if true?

It seems sad to concede to the idea, that a meteorological question cannot be discussed scientifically on a forum consisting mostly of science friendly nerds.

Apart from this, please feel free to criticize any of the statements in my previous post and point out, where I went wrong.

Andy

Tue Apr 15 2014, 07:33PM

Registered Member #4266 Joined: Fri Dec 16 2011, 03:15AM
Location:
Posts: 874

One thing I don't understand is if CO2 reflects IR, why doesn't it reflect more IR into space if theirs a build up, they said that its a different length(longer) that can go through but when it hits the ground it changes frequency(shorter), so it can get reflected.

Does that make sense

Carbon_Rod

Wed Apr 16 2014, 01:26AM

Registered Member #65 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 06:43AM
Location:
Posts: 1155

Andy wrote ...

One thing I don't understand is if CO2 reflects IR, why doesn't it reflect more IR into space if theirs a build up, they said that its a different length(longer) that can go through but when it hits the ground it changes frequency(shorter), so it can get reflected.

Does that make sense

Almost

The Sun's broad spectrum radiation emits its peak power output around the same wavelengths of primate vision capabilities. The shorter wavelengths reflect off the sand/snow/light-clouds back to space, but vegetation or water absorb the energy in specific bands and emit in the long-wave infrared spectrum. The atmospheric layers are almost transparent at short wavelengths, but absorb and re-emit the IR spectrum energy in all directions including back to the surface. The greenhouse effect is mostly a good thing, as it ensures the planet does not emit the suns energy immediately back to space dropping to a natural surface temperature of around -18 Â°C. Solar cycles have little effect on the overall climate, but does cause the data to oscillate as the seasonal earth tilt maximum coincide with earth-sun radial distance.

In fact, earth is classified as having only around 0.6 planetary atmospheres. If you measure the surface temperatures of Venus, it is an example of the greenhouse process at the extreme levels (462 Â°C). Note, the narrow IR bands in the spectrum that bypass most greenhouse gases like CO2/Water is used to measure the radiation from Earth to calculate true surface temperature (like a non-contact laser thermometer), and is used to calculate the energy stored in the layer abstracted model system.

Global warming refers to the energy retention in a planetary climate system over long periods of time, and does not describe weather in a specific year's winter. The massive thermal heat sink (known as the Ocean) changes very slowly over time, and its effects rather than cause were thought to be easier for people to comprehend the relevance.

Pundits that cow people through anti-intellectualism may give the appearance of rhetoric powered progress, but fundamentally allow people to continue doing what they know to be harmful/profitable. The argument of fault is a detractor for political catharsis, and is meaningless in 50 years.

Andy

Wed Apr 16 2014, 08:03AM

Registered Member #4266 Joined: Fri Dec 16 2011, 03:15AM
Location:
Posts: 874

Thanks Carbon_Rod
Just seem strange, and that was the only leg I was standing on, damn :).

What would be the feedback time frame for global warming, if it takes along time to slowly buildup?, statistic wouldn't help as they are only accurate after the fact(opinion),is there any way apart from statistic, could it be to late to reverse without having 50-100 years of pain.

With what Uspring said, how would you increase global warning on Mars to say 20C?

Sulaiman

Wed Apr 16 2014, 09:06AM

Registered Member #162 Joined: Mon Feb 13 2006, 10:25AM
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3141

with an ice age due any time now, we may need a little global warming

Imagine aliens observing Earth, what may be their conclusions?
- we are savages !
wars, oppression, decimation of the land and ocean environments ........

So, whatever the truth of man made 'global warming/climate change' due to CO2
if we earthlings cannot establish peace and cooperation amongst ourselves then we will be in a very weak position to mitigate our mistakes.
So I would prefer that we concentrate on establishing peace, love and tolerance ASAP.

"There's nothing fundamentally wrong with a warmed Earth ..."
is a completely reckless and unfounded statement
as we have negligible knowledge of the consequences
- a good title to stimulate discussion, though a little 'combative'

Carbon_Rod

Wed Apr 16 2014, 09:14AM

Registered Member #65 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 06:43AM
Location:
Posts: 1155

@Andy
I'd wager it is possible as Mars did have a heavier atmospheric density in its past, but it would still take a very long time to become even slightly habitable for humans. Some folks have spent entire research careers trying to figure out why Mars turned out the way it is today... as if there is subsurface liquid water it may already have life....

In theory, a sustained atomic delivery option could dig-up water-vapor and dust to start a surface cycle in several hundred years. Extremophile lichen known to directly consume surface minerals could form the basis for plant life with minimal microbial support. Note, normal lichen is already known to survive 34 days in a Mars atmosphere simulation, but seems to rapidly evolve in unpredicted ways under such conditions.

Perhaps you may see a comet relocation program for Mars in your lifetime.

@Sulaiman
Unfortunately, it won't only be the poorest nations that suffer....
You can be certain 2.3 billion people will resent starving in a new desert with diminished carrying capacity.
You can be 99% certain they will not be thinking about peace or reconciliation.
War is profitable...

Dr. Slack

Wed Apr 16 2014, 02:10PM

Registered Member #72 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 08:29AM
Location: UK St. Albans
Posts: 1659

Sulaiman wrote ...

"There's nothing fundamentally wrong with a warmed Earth ..."
is a completely reckless and unfounded statement
as we have negligible knowledge of the consequences
- a good title to stimulate discussion, though a little 'combative'

Where I was coming from was that humans and animals live quite sucessfully from the Arctic to the equator, at temperatures from sub-zero to 'king hot. But that's because the local practice has eveloved to suit the local conditions. If earth warmed a few degrees, all those temperatures shift up a bit, and maybe the very hottest becomes uninhabitable, but, who cares, there are uninhabitable regions of the planet now. So, fundamentally, there's not too much different, there are places on the planet where humans can make a go of things.

But, if you take a very large number of people, who are attached to one specific place by infrastructure built at sea-level, and agriculture finely honed to a temperature climate, then *change* the temperature and sea-level, then you have a receipe for political unrest on a military scale. It's the change to established practice and location that's the problem, not so much what it's changing to.

Notice I'm not even blaming humans for this. All we have to notice is that atmospheric CO2 is going up, and then look at the fossil record, and IR absobrption experiments, to notice that increased CO2 is very likely to mean higher average temperatures and sea levels. Now, do we want to shift our infrastructure to higher ground, or spend money on reducing atmospheric CO2? Neither actually. Would you voluntarily accept extra costs when you are trying to outcompete your neighbour, or up-sticks when there's no short-term threat, say in the next 10 years, or a generation or two? No, and neither will the collection of world leaders whose time-scales are to the next election, and whose most important priority is keeping sufficient of their electorate happy with whatever baubles they seem to want.

There are two ways to find a hot component in a circuit. The first is to turn it off as soon as it takes too much current or smells slightly, and then carefully feel the components. I tend to use the other way, which is to leave it on and watch for the smoke. I think that we, as a dysfunctional commercial/military/political elite-led rabble, will wait for the smoke until things are getting *really* unpleasant before any real action is taken. That delay, I think, will give me 20/30 years to enjoy my pension, and check out before the brown stuff hits the fan. The brown stuff being the action that is taken, because do you think it will be to sort out everybodies fu'ked infrastructure, or for the strong to grab everybody else's infrastructure? Answers on post-card please, as they used to say.

previous 1 2 3

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob