Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: cem_devecioglu on 07 September 2010, 12:56:03
-
ok.. although last night I was sleepless because of neighbours, I didnt bother to open the pc and check oof :-/ with the hope of sleeping at any chance.. >:(
My intention is not to start another slanging match but to share my info and views which I couldnt post on oof last night.. ::) :P
dont know how many of you has suffered thermodynamics exams or lectures in the past..
I had.. :P
there is a law..
it says that "energy can neither be created nor destroyed.. only it can be
converted from one form to another.." (first law of thermodynamics..) ;)
now , we all know that earth surface in day time become hotter by sun light (absorbing energy)
so it has to cool down otherwise the temperature will continue to rise and we will all boil up.. :-?
this cooling happens in the form of emitted thermal energy, infrared, that is transmitted to space.. :-?
However , earth, having athmosphere like a blanket :) , keeps some of this
energy preventing earth from reaching -273C :o :o in night time (actually it will
never be exact -273.00000000000000000000000 -as 3rd law of thermodynamics also dont let this to happen) ,
saving the life forms from being destroyed.. :)
Now consider a scenario that the earths population increases continously
(is 100 billion enough for you or say 1Kbillion :o :o ) , and so the industrial production , traffic
(air, sea and land ) etc..it will obviously reach to a point that the sum of
energy released from mankind sources wont be negligible compared to energy coming
from the sun.. :( :( (although seems to be complex these energy ratios can be calculated
and also measured.. (from thermodynamics avg temperatures will increase in a vessel
without any doubt if you inject more energy -even if its open from one side- regardless of the size)
Now what happens if you change the type of blanket, say from cotton to wool.. :P :P
simple.. average temperatures in specified time slices again will be higher.. :-/
of course, for this heating - cooling periods athmosphere has a cooling rate which can increase with the
higher temperatures (its like a safety valve) ..
Now in theory (forget other factors for a while) (which actually is not the case) at a fix hour (say 6 am in the morning ) the
temperature must go back to the previous state as the previous days morning 6 am but between
those hours the avg temperatures at some specific points will be higher then the previous
if you continue to increase the amount of energy released..
However the real life weather is more complicated than this scenario as oceans, rivers,lakes,
clouds-which reflects the suns radiation, earths orbital around the sun (winters , summers) etc disturbs
the equation, transports the energy and in a way balances the system earlier than the cooling period..
However I must note that
* all those balancing systems have finite powers..
* whatever balancing systems do, its very obvious that avg temperatures between those
heating cooling periods will be higher than previous in a measurable amount.. ( I dont say normal
as the state of being normal is very relative or undefined)
-
Hi Cem,
It's good that you want to talk about the real science and not enter a slanging match! :y :y :y
I don't have the time (due to work) to post much at this juncture, but I would point out that greenhouse gases do not, as I understand it, act together as a conventional blanket since they do not trap convective heat. Also, 70% of the planet is ocean, which is worth bearing in mind when we talk of the effects of urbanisation on the planet as a whole.
I addition to the UHI effect, there are also land use changes which have an effect on local climates, so I do not deny that humanity has no climatic effect at all, just that the overall effect is not potentially catastrophic. I do believe, though, that the fixation on CO2 as the number 1 problem (which i do not believe it is) is diverting attention from real ecological problems such as deforestation.
I think the link below is excellent. It answers many of the questions about the greenhouse effect in layman's terms.
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
Now, back to work.... :y
-
I'm not sure if there was actually a question in there Cem? ;D ;D
Don't forget that conservation of energy theorem requires that you consider the whole system (but you can choose the system boundaries). So if you are considering the earth as the system, then you have to combine external energy inputs from outside the system (the sun etc.) with the losses out of that system (radiation from the far side, loss of matter, gain of matter (meteorites etc.).
What mankind does is not creating energy, he converts it by burning fossil fuels, converting matter to energy (nuclear fission etc.). These are entirely within the system defined as the earth so produce no net energy change according to the law.
...possibly ;D ;D ;D
-
WOW!! (bit much for my poor brain at this time, but interesting stuff, however and very "deep")
How do "human emissions" and "bovine methane expultion" change this equation??
Seeing as cattle emit staggering amounts of methane gas into the environment I would assume SOMEBODY has factored all this into the argument?
-
:-? Think Ive just logged on to the wrong Forum.
-
Thanks Cem for that very interesting and thought provoking scientific analysis 8-) 8-) 8-) :y :y :y :y :y.
-
PMSL..... :-? :y
-
Hi Cem,
It's good that you want to talk about the real science and not enter a slanging match! :y :y :y
I don't have the time (due to work) to post much at this juncture, but I would point out that greenhouse gases do not, as I understand it, act together as a conventional blanket since they do not trap convective heat. Also, 70% of the planet is ocean, which is worth bearing in mind when we talk of the effects of urbanisation on the planet as a whole.
I addition to the UHI effect, there are also land use changes which have an effect on local climates, so I do not deny that humanity has no climatic effect at all, just that the overall effect is not potentially catastrophic. I do believe, though, that the fixation on CO2 as the number 1 problem (which i do not believe it is) is diverting attention from real ecological problems such as deforestation.
I think the link below is excellent. It answers many of the questions about the greenhouse effect in layman's terms.
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
Now, back to work.... :y
I'm intrigued that you separate deforestation from the CO2 debate since a main feature of deforestation is reduced CO2 absorption and O2 creation.
-
This is getting to be an intractable problem made more so as the science charged with investigating it has been devalued to a large extent by the by the questionable agenda of so many groups/individuals unconnected to the scientific community.
The eye has effectively been taken off the ball and the very real problems that humanity will face in the near future such as a stable food supply, continued availability of potable water, increasingly unstable political systems, increasing use of capital violence to express will, ever more fragile global financial arrangements and so on will bite hard as time goes on.
Insofar as AGW is concerned my take on this was expressed in that other thread (Part excerpt);
I have no problem with accepting that there are indeed changes happening to the climatic balance we've all experienced and enjoyed over the recent past. As far as I’m concerned however this is part of the natural cycle driven by a living planet powered by its sun - the only reason incidentally for earth's ability to support life in the first place - - our impact in terms of atmospheric pollutants which may contribute to an overall heating (if this does indeed exist in any extensive way) is in my view minimal.
Where we have altered things to the detriment of the planet seems to spring from avarice and the lust for power and influence: The stripping of the rain forest for gain, deforestation of vast swaths of land for the purposes of mining/building, the constant probing of the planet in the search for energy sources.
The list is extensive but always seems to depend on the use, and in some cases the over use, of planetary resources. This in my view is more worrying than the alleged overheating of the global atmosphere by what we’ve done over the last one hundred years or so.
Aside from this, I’m surprised that many apparently sensible people appear to accept, without question, the assertions of individuals/groups who maintain that the science is ‘settled’ in terms of AGW. Since when is science ever settled?
And, despite CEM’s rather involved piece, I'm still of this view.
-
ok.. although last night I was sleepless because of neighbours, I didnt bother to open the pc and check oof :-/ with the hope of sleeping at any chance.. >:(
My intention is not to start another slanging match but to share my info and views which I couldnt post on oof last night.. ::) :P
dont know how many of you has suffered thermodynamics exams or lectures in the past................
Thank's for that cem, can you tell me what it means in practical terms as I know nothing about thermodynamics. :(
-
Yes CEM, "suffered" being the right word. I was a lot younger then, with a much less attention span and although my lecturer was a decent chap, he never really made the subject "interesting".
A lot of it therefore went straight over my head, and through my ears.
-
I'm not sure if there was actually a question in there Cem? ;D ;D
1 Don't forget that conservation of energy theorem requires that you consider the whole system (but you can choose the system boundaries).
Yes..
2 So if you are considering the earth as the system, then you have to combine external energy inputs from outside the system (the sun etc.) with the losses out of that system (radiation from the far side, loss of matter, gain of matter (meteorites etc.).
main energy sources are considered as you can see above..and the system boundries are above crust and below athmospheric-space boundry -ionosphere etc
3 What mankind does is not creating energy, he converts it by burning fossil fuels, converting matter to energy (nuclear fission etc.).
Yes..
4 These are entirely within the system defined as the earth so produce no net energy change according to the law.
no.. when you burn fossil fuels you transfer energy from underground to the system where we live..
...possibly ;D ;D ;D
-
Blimey!! a bit too deep for my limited amount of brain cells to digest, but very interesting all the same. Wish I'd listened more at lectures now..................
-
WOW!! (bit much for my poor brain at this time, but interesting stuff, however and very "deep")
Thanks :y
How do "human emissions" and "bovine methane expultion" change this equation??
Seeing as cattle emit staggering amounts of methane gas into the environment I would assume SOMEBODY has factored all this into the argument?
they add energy to the system
-
:-? Think Ive just logged on to the wrong Forum.
;D ;D :y
-
Thanks Cem for that very interesting and thought provoking scientific analysis 8-) 8-) 8-) :y :y :y :y :y.
:y :y :y :y
-
I'm intrigued that you separate deforestation from the CO2 debate since a main feature of deforestation is reduced CO2 absorption and O2 creation.
I am concerned about the loss of habitat in terms of wildlife and indigenous populations, as well as localised climate change (the reduction of snowfall on Kilimanjaro has blamed on deforestation which has reduced precipitation at the summit). Whilst there would also be loss of some CO2 sequestration capacity, the overall increase in the global biosphere, as witnessed recently by Nasa probes, would probably offset it. In other words, the loss of habitat is a serious issue, the collateral loss of CO2 sequestration, in isolation, somewhat less so.
Hope that answers your query. :y
-
:-? :-? Ok, guys your starting to scare me now.
-
ok.. although last night I was sleepless because of neighbours, I didnt bother to open the pc and check oof :-/ with the hope of sleeping at any chance.. >:(
My intention is not to start another slanging match but to share my info and views which I couldnt post on oof last night.. ::) :P
dont know how many of you has suffered thermodynamics exams or lectures in the past................
Thank's for that cem, can you tell me what it means in practical terms as I know nothing about thermodynamics. :(
Hi Zulu :y
very briefly , thermodynamics is a branch of physics that studies heat and energy conversion..
energy conversion includes some basical definitions which must be understood..
these are simply temperature, energy , enthalpy , entropy..
energy : measure of work..
enthalpy : amount of heat transferred between the system and the environment
entropy : disorder of molecules and tendency for lower energy state.. an increasing/expanding volume of molecules means increased entropy..
I can go in more details but I dont think members will like it.. :y
-
Cem, firstly your english has come on leaps and bounds. I doubt I would have been able to explain the same thing in French, my second language, and I am considered almost native :o
Secondly I think it is nice to have proper reasoned debate rather than heated discussions or worse. I pulled out of the last thread as it was getting unnecessarily nasty and I had a déja vu moment.. To have such an informative description is just what the doctor ordered :y
Lastly, Debs with Cem and Master Zulu around you have competition as Brianiac extraordinaire :y
-
This is getting to be an intractable problem made more so as the science charged with investigating it has been devalued to a large extent by the by the questionable agenda of so many groups/individuals unconnected to the scientific community.
there may be groups which may want to abuse scientific facts but this alone wont change the fact and results .. as I explained above..
The eye has effectively been taken off the ball
yep.. but thats true for many subjects..and also wont prevent things happening..
and the very real problems that humanity will face in the near future such as a stable food supply, continued availability of potable water, increasingly unstable political systems, increasing use of capital violence to express will, ever more fragile global financial arrangements and so on will bite hard as time goes on.
bad news but inevitably will happen..
Insofar as AGW is concerned my take on this was expressed in that other thread (Part excerpt);
I have no problem with accepting that there are indeed changes happening to the climatic balance we've all experienced and enjoyed over the recent past. As far as I’m concerned however this is part of the natural cycle driven by a living planet powered by its sun
thats really questionable.. as we are increasing to release energy more and more everyday..which cant be easily neglected..
- the only reason incidentally for earth's ability to support life in the first place - - our impact in terms of atmospheric pollutants which may contribute to an overall heating (if this does indeed exist in any extensive way) is in my view minimal.
without a real calculation "minimal" definition must be used carefully imo..
Where we have altered things to the detriment of the planet seems to spring from avarice and the lust for power and influence: The stripping of the rain forest for gain, deforestation of vast swaths of land for the purposes of mining/building, the constant probing of the planet in the search for energy sources.
The list is extensive but always seems to depend on the use, and in some cases the over use, of planetary resources. This in my view is more worrying than the alleged overheating of the global atmosphere by what we’ve done over the last one hundred years or so.
Aside from this, I’m surprised that many apparently sensible people appear to accept, without question, the assertions of individuals/groups who maintain that the science is ‘settled’ in terms of AGW. Since when is science ever settled?
when the necessary measurement and calculations are done and proofs are in front of our eyes real scientists will accept and settle.. but not the fake scientists with salaries from specific sources :-/
And, despite CEM’s rather involved piece, I'm still of this view.
-
Cem, firstly your english has come on leaps and bounds. I doubt I would have been able to explain the same thing in French, my second language, and I am considered almost native :o
Secondly I think it is nice to have proper reasoned debate rather than heated discussions or worse. I pulled out of the last thread as it was getting unnecessarily nasty and I had a déja vu moment.. To have such an informative description is just what the doctor ordered :y
Lastly, Debs with Cem and Master Zulu around you have competition as Brianiac extraordinaire :y
Thanks Gaffers :y :y :y
-
Hi Zulu :y
very briefly , thermodynamics is a branch of physics that studies heat and energy conversion..
energy conversion includes some basical definitions which must be understood..
these are simply temperature, energy , enthalpy , entropy..
energy : measure of work..
enthalpy : amount of heat transferred between the system and the environment
entropy : disorder of molecules and tendency for lower energy state.. an increasing/expanding volume of molecules means increased entropy..
I can go in more details but I dont think members will like it.. :y
Thank you cem but this would remain a subject difficult for me to grasp.
In terms of AGW (and this remains a crucial component of these discussions) it would be my view that the potential for a global temperature increase leading to climatic change (along with other phenomena) would more reasonably rest with energy converted from the heat generated by the molten core of the planet and by the sun both being released into the environment.
As these two factors appear, at least to me, to be capable of easily outweighing any contribution we would make as a result of burning energy to survive and move about, can recent human activity really compete with those massive forces in any meaningful way to destabilise the climatic balance in the way alleged?
-
Hi Cem,
It's good that you want to talk about the real science and not enter a slanging match! :y :y :y
I don't have the time (due to work) to post much at this juncture, but I would point out that greenhouse gases do not, as I understand it, act together as a conventional blanket since they do not trap convective heat. Also, 70% of the planet is ocean, which is worth bearing in mind when we talk of the effects of urbanisation on the planet as a whole.
I addition to the UHI effect, there are also land use changes which have an effect on local climates, so I do not deny that humanity has no climatic effect at all, just that the overall effect is not potentially catastrophic. I do believe, though, that the fixation on CO2 as the number 1 problem (which i do not believe it is) is diverting attention from real ecological problems such as deforestation.
I think the link below is excellent. It answers many of the questions about the greenhouse effect in layman's terms.
http://[highlight]http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/[/highlight]
Now, back to work.... :y
now some parts from the link
So, humans aren't affecting the planet or its temperature.
Whoa! We didn't say that at all. ;D ;D
This discussion is on greenhouse effect and possible enhanced greenhouse, but that's a long way from anthropogenic effect in total. Whether or not they really affect global mean temperature, human endeavors have significant local effects. yess
The heat island effect mentioned above or the local effect of increased water vapor from large scale irrigation schemes would be good examples. Then there's land use change which can be variable depending on latitude -- replacing dark forest with wheat fields might significantly affect local albedo and cooling one region while denying shade in a more heavily irradiated region might cause ground heating through increased absorption.
There are many effects in a hugely complex system, some will be negative, some positive
nope.. all negative.. human based structures absorb more radiation from the sun compared to nature..
and all represent change, although that is neither good nor bad in and of itself. That humans affect the region of their activities is true -- that enhanced greenhouse from human activity is known to be a current or imminent catastrophe is not. And this document is only dealing with greenhouse effect and "global warming."
nope.. these are all combined effects and you cant cut critical parameters from the eqn ;D
Remember:
Water vapor and carbon dioxide are major greenhouse gases.
Water vapor accounts for about 70% of the greenhouse effect, carbon dioxide somewhere between 4.2% and 8.4%.
thats purely an assumption not science as CO2 levels continously increasing and the ratio cant be fixed forever.. thats just for a specific point at time dimension :-/
Much of the wavelength bands where carbon dioxide is active are either at or near saturation.
Water vapor absorbs infrared over much the same range as carbon dioxide and more besides.
Clouds are not composed of greenhouse gas -- they are mostly water droplets -- but absorb about one-fifth of the longwave radiation emitted by Earth.
Clouds can briefly saturate the atmospheric radiation window (8-13µm) through which some Earth radiation passes directly to space (those hot and sticky overcast nights produce this effect - that is greenhouse but has nothing to do with carbon dioxide).
Greenhouse gases can not obstruct this window although ozone absorbs in a narrow slice at 9.6µm.
Adding more greenhouse gases which absorb in already saturated bandwidths has no net effect.
:-? thats completely wrong.. :o
how do you define saturated.. you change the molecular composition ratios continously which can handle different enthalpy levels how can you say that.. :-?
Adding them in near-saturated bands has little additional effect.
about that link I'll briefly say that not bad for a student .. :)
but honestly for real proof you need numerical simulation solutions to differential equation models matching to real measurements of millions of rows of real data .. Thats what we do in petroleum reservoir
fields for future well flow prediction.. :-/ :-/
ps : you need multiple server systems a bit ;D stronger than the ones used in meteorology and some! programmers..
-
Hi Zulu :y
very briefly , thermodynamics is a branch of physics that studies heat and energy conversion..
energy conversion includes some basical definitions which must be understood..
these are simply temperature, energy , enthalpy , entropy..
energy : measure of work..
enthalpy : amount of heat transferred between the system and the environment
entropy : disorder of molecules and tendency for lower energy state.. an increasing/expanding volume of molecules means increased entropy..
I can go in more details but I dont think members will like it.. :y
Thank you cem but this would remain a subject difficult for me to grasp.
In terms of AGW (and this remains a crucial component of these discussions) it would be my view that the potential for a global temperature increase leading to climatic change (along with other phenomena) would more reasonably rest with energy converted from the heat generated by the molten core of the planet and by the sun both being released into the environment.
As these two factors appear, at least me, to be capable of easily outweighing any contribution we would make as a result of burning energy to survive and move about, can recent human activity really compete with those massive forces in any meaningful way to destabilise the climatic balance in the way alleged?
yes.. if you open the switch for some nuclear reactors for a test like russians ;D ;D at the same time you can heat the athmosphere more than enough ;D ;D ;D :y
-
there may be groups which may want to abuse scientific facts but this alone wont change the fact and results .. as I explained above
Providing we accept that the 'science' governing the AGW part of climatic change has not been perverted or contaminated by the influence of such groups.
but thats true for many subjects..and also wont prevent things happening.
bad news but inevitably will happen..
My point regarding these quotes is that these are the important matters we should be worrying about rather than AGW as the resultant turmoil from these factors will perhaps hold greater danger for us all.
thats really questionable.. as we are increasing to release energy more and more everyday..which cant be easily neglected.
That's perhaps a reasonable enough concern
but will it doom humankind in the way suggested by those proponents of AGW - that's a big ask considering the controversial way in which this whole scientific investigation has been handled.
without a real calculation "minimal" definition must be used carefully imo
I would suggest that this term is as qualified as those being used to suggest that there's unequivocal proof that certain factors are conspiring to doom mankind as a result of AGW.
when the necessary measurement and calculations are done and proofs are in front of our eyes real scientists will accept and settle.. but not the fake scientists with salaries from specific sources
That's a tremendous leap of faith there cem in a dynamic constantly evolving environment and to say that there can never be any alternative view is misguided in my view.
-
Cem, Cem, Cem......bringing physics into this debate is a bit like bringing a gun to a knife fight - totally unfair, totally one-sided....just not cricket in my opinion :y ;)
But very interesting all the same, and perhaps we can have a proper debate without all the screaming rhetoric and abuse..........obviously I'll jump in if you need screaming rhetoric and abuse, but you're doing fine with this scientific angle ;D
-
I'm not sure if there was actually a question in there Cem? ;D ;D
1 Don't forget that conservation of energy theorem requires that you consider the whole system (but you can choose the system boundaries).
Yes..
2 So if you are considering the earth as the system, then you have to combine external energy inputs from outside the system (the sun etc.) with the losses out of that system (radiation from the far side, loss of matter, gain of matter (meteorites etc.).
main energy sources are considered as you can see above..and the system boundries are above crust and below athmospheric-space boundry -ionosphere etc
3 What mankind does is not creating energy, he converts it by burning fossil fuels, converting matter to energy (nuclear fission etc.).
Yes..
4 These are entirely within the system defined as the earth so produce no net energy change according to the law.
no.. when you burn fossil fuels you transfer energy from underground to the system where we live..
...possibly ;D ;D ;D
I can't see the benefit in excluding the earth's body from your system as there must be considerable heat transfer between core and crust, crust and atmosphere. Also, purely from a geometric point of view, it is totally enclosed by the atmosphere.
-
I'm not sure if there was actually a question in there Cem? ;D ;D
1 Don't forget that conservation of energy theorem requires that you consider the whole system (but you can choose the system boundaries).
Yes..
2 So if you are considering the earth as the system, then you have to combine external energy inputs from outside the system (the sun etc.) with the losses out of that system (radiation from the far side, loss of matter, gain of matter (meteorites etc.).
main energy sources are considered as you can see above..and the system boundries are above crust and below athmospheric-space boundry -ionosphere etc
3 What mankind does is not creating energy, he converts it by burning fossil fuels, converting matter to energy (nuclear fission etc.).
Yes..
4 These are entirely within the system defined as the earth so produce no net energy change according to the law.
no.. when you burn fossil fuels you transfer energy from underground to the system where we live..
...possibly ;D ;D ;D
I can't see the benefit in excluding the earth's body from your system as there must be considerable heat transfer between core and crust, crust and atmosphere. Also, purely from a geometric point of view, it is totally enclosed by the atmosphere.
excluding the volcanoes I assume the earths crust behave like an insulator for the vessel in my model.. (although not that simple) .. but actually earths internal energy is dropping very slowly meaning that it also transfers heat to the system.. :y
-
Cem, Cem, Cem......bringing physics into this debate is a bit like bringing a gun to a knife fight - totally unfair, totally one-sided....just not cricket in my opinion :y ;)
But very interesting all the same, and perhaps we can have a proper debate without all the screaming rhetoric and abuse..........obviously I'll jump in if you need screaming rhetoric and abuse, but you're doing fine with this scientific angle ;D
:y :y :y
-
Now consider a scenario that the earths population increases continously (is 100 billion enough for you or say 1Kbillion ) , and so the industrial production , traffic (air, sea and land ) etc..it will obviously reach to a point that the sum of energy released from mankind sources wont be negligible compared to energy coming from the sun..
Don't think this can happen. I don't have the figures, and I don't know where (or how) to find them, but I'm inclined to think that the amount of energy received on the surface of the Earth from Solar radiation is several orders of magnitude greater than the total energy conversion brought about by the totality of mankind.
I also doubt that the earth will ever be able to support a population of 100bn. Food, water and energy supplies are more likely to be the limiting factors than climate change, although the environmental damage sustained in achieving such a huge population doesn't bear thinking about.
It should also be noted that the politics of population increase are likely to impose limits at a far lower number than this.
Lebensraum? You ain't seen nothing yet!
-
there may be groups which may want to abuse scientific facts but this alone wont change the fact and results .. as I explained above
Providing we accept that the 'science' governing the AGW part of climatic change has not been perverted or contaminated by the influence of such groups.
but thats true for many subjects..and also wont prevent things happening.
bad news but inevitably will happen..
My point regarding these quotes is that these are the important matters we should be worrying about rather than AGW as the resultant turmoil from these factors will perhaps hold greater danger for us all.
thats really questionable.. as we are increasing to release energy more and more everyday..which cant be easily neglected.
That's perhaps a reasonable enough concern
but will it doom humankind in the way suggested by those proponents of AGW - that's a big ask considering the controversial way in which this whole scientific investigation has been handled.
without a real calculation "minimal" definition must be used carefully imo
I would suggest that this term is as qualified as those being used to suggest that there's unequivocal proof that certain factors are conspiring to doom mankind as a result of AGW.
when the necessary measurement and calculations are done and proofs are in front of our eyes real scientists will accept and settle.. but not the fake scientists with salaries from specific sources
That's a tremendous leap of faith there cem in a dynamic constantly evolving environment and to say that there can never be any alternative view is misguided in my view.
Zulu, seriously I cant say humankind will be doomed in the near future by global warming..
However I can say my wife doesnt like to wash 3-4 t-shirts everyday ;D which I must blame on something ;D ;D :y
-
Now consider a scenario that the earths population increases continously (is 100 billion enough for you or say 1Kbillion ) , and so the industrial production , traffic (air, sea and land ) etc..it will obviously reach to a point that the sum of energy released from mankind sources wont be negligible compared to energy coming from the sun..
Don't think this can happen. I don't have the figures, and I don't know where (or how) to find them, but I'm inclined to think that the amount of energy received on the surface of the Earth from Solar radiation is several orders of magnitude greater than the total energy conversion brought about by the totality of mankind.
me too.. but remember mankind now is using nuclear also..which can produce enormous amounts of energy..compare the production of factories to a hundred years ago.. I cant predict the production even after 50 years .. it goes exponential me thinks..
I also doubt that the earth will ever be able to support a population of 100bn. Food, water and energy supplies are more likely to be the limiting factors than climate change, although the environmental damage sustained in achieving such a huge population doesn't bear thinking about.
yes..
It should also be noted that the politics of population increase are likely to impose limits at a far lower number than this.
Lebensraum? You ain't seen nothing yet!
I think there is already.. but of course will be worse after :(
-
Zulu, seriously I cant say humankind will be doomed in the near future by global warming..
However I can say my wife doesnt like to wash 3-4 t-shirts everyday ;D which I must blame on something ;D ;D :y
Aah now we’re getting to point in the discussions where reason begins surface.
I'm glad to see that you appreciate the point I'm making about the potentially catastrophic future humankind faces as proposed by the AGW lobby and how unhelpful it is to reasoned, qualified and well researched investigation into climate change.
Many in that lobby have suggested the very thing you are discounting in the first part of your reply.
Regarding your shirts, blame climate change brought about by mainly natural phenomena as opposed to change solely brought about by humankind.
-
Zulu, seriously I cant say humankind will be doomed in the near future by global warming..
However I can say my wife doesnt like to wash 3-4 t-shirts everyday ;D which I must blame on something ;D ;D :y
Aah now we’re getting to point in the discussions where reason begins surface.
must be..
I'm glad to see that you appreciate the point I'm making about the potentially catastrophic future humankind faces as proposed by the AGW lobby and how unhelpful it is to reasoned, qualified and well researched investigation into climate change.
Many in that lobby have suggested the very thing you are discounting in the first part of your reply.
I think the floods and sea level rise cant easly doom the human kind.. but may have cost to some lifes and money though..
Regarding your shirts, blame climate change brought about by mainly natural phenomena as opposed to change solely brought about by humankind.
-
I am not going to get fully involved again in one of these very interesting, but sometimes fraught, debates on the global warming issue which could or perhaps may be not, down to man.
However, just to prompt thought in another direction, we all face a much bigger threat from nature; the super-volcano under Yellowstone National Park. When, not if, that goes up global warming will not be the problem, although climate change will undoubtedly be so!
Scientists are monitoring 'the Park', and the situation is not getting any better.
Sorry Cem to slightly go off your threads track, but super-volcanoes, which scientist believe number 5 around the world, just bring the whole subject of natural threat to humans in perspective. What will get us first? Global warming, climate change, or the Yellowstone Super-Volcano??
;) ;) ;) ;)
-
I am not going to get fully involved again in one of these very interesting, but sometimes fraught, debates on the global warming issue which could or perhaps may be not, down to man.
However, just to prompt thought in another direction, we all face a much bigger threat from nature; the super-volcano under Yellowstone National Park. When, not if, that goes up global warming will not be the problem, although climate change will undoubtedly be so!
Scientists are monitoring 'the Park', and the situation is not getting any better.
Sorry Cem to slightly go off your threads track, but super-volcanoes, which scientist believe number 5 around the world, just bring the whole subject of natural threat to humans in perspective. What will get us first? Global warming, climate change, or the Yellowstone Super-Volcano??
;) ;) ;) ;)
the super-volcano under Yellowstone National Park.
Now you're talking Lizzie :-* :-* Most other things, including mankind's greatest achievements, pale into insignificance when compared to that raw power.
-
I am not going to get fully involved again in one of these very interesting, but sometimes fraught, debates on the global warming issue which could or perhaps may be not, down to man.
However, just to prompt thought in another direction, we all face a much bigger threat from nature; the super-volcano under Yellowstone National Park. When, not if, that goes up global warming will not be the problem, although climate change will undoubtedly be so!
Scientists are monitoring 'the Park', and the situation is not getting any better.
Sorry Cem to slightly go off your threads track, but super-volcanoes, which scientist believe number 5 around the world, just bring the whole subject of natural threat to humans in perspective. What will get us first? Global warming, climate change, or the Yellowstone Super-Volcano??
;) ;) ;) ;)
yep.. Lizzie.. you are right.. when those volcanoes erupt , ashes can fill a serious portion of the athmosphere stopping suns radiation and start to cool down the earth :o :(
eh, we wont burn up but froze alive instead ;D
-
I am not going to get fully involved again in one of these very interesting, but sometimes fraught, debates on the global warming issue which could or perhaps may be not, down to man.
However, just to prompt thought in another direction, we all face a much bigger threat from nature; the super-volcano under Yellowstone National Park. When, not if, that goes up global warming will not be the problem, although climate change will undoubtedly be so!
Scientists are monitoring 'the Park', and the situation is not getting any better.
Sorry Cem to slightly go off your threads track, but super-volcanoes, which scientist believe number 5 around the world, just bring the whole subject of natural threat to humans in perspective. What will get us first? Global warming, climate change, or the Yellowstone Super-Volcano??
;) ;) ;) ;)
yep.. Lizzie.. you are right.. when those volcanoes erupt , ashes can fill a serious portion of the athmosphere stopping suns radiation and start to cool down the earth :o :(
eh, we wont burn up but froze alive instead ;D
Yes, we will go into an ice age lasting many, many decades!! :o :o
-
now some parts from the link
This discussion is on greenhouse effect and possible enhanced greenhouse, but that's a long way from anthropogenic effect in total. Whether or not they really affect global mean temperature, human endeavors have significant local effects. yess
The heat island effect mentioned above or the local effect of increased water vapor from large scale irrigation schemes would be good examples. Then there's land use change which can be variable depending on latitude -- replacing dark forest with wheat fields might significantly affect local albedo and cooling one region while denying shade in a more heavily irradiated region might cause ground heating through increased absorption.
There are many effects in a hugely complex system, some will be negative, some positive
nope.. all negative.. human based structures absorb more radiation from the sun compared to nature..
I feel, you're misunderstanding the point the author makes. He is taking about positive and negative feedbacks. Replacing a forest with a corn field is a negative feedback as it will reflect heat away from the earth's surface, whereas a urbanisation is a positive feedback as it absorbs IR radiation.
and all represent change, although that is neither good nor bad in and of itself. That humans affect the region of their activities is true -- that enhanced greenhouse from human activity is known to be a current or imminent catastrophe is not. And this document is only dealing with greenhouse effect and "global warming."
nope.. these are all combined effects and you cant cut critical parameters from the eqn ;D
Cem, the paper merely deals with the greenhouse theory, as the author states. Of course there are many drivers of climate, such as ocean current oscillations, solar flux and goodness knows what else. He is merely stating that he is explaining the greenhouse effect in isolation.
Remember:
Water vapor and carbon dioxide are major greenhouse gases.
Water vapor accounts for about 70% of the greenhouse effect, carbon dioxide somewhere between 4.2% and 8.4%.
thats purely an assumption not science as CO2 levels continously increasing and the ratio cant be fixed forever.. thats just for a specific point at time dimension :-/
Well, CO2 may be increasing but, at 390pp, or 0.039% of the atmosphere it wold take a long, long, time to alter these % ratios outside the bands mentioned. Also, the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades. (See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm).
Much of the wavelength bands where carbon dioxide is active are either at or near saturation.
Water vapor absorbs infrared over much the same range as carbon dioxide and more besides.
Clouds are not composed of greenhouse gas -- they are mostly water droplets -- but absorb about one-fifth of the longwave radiation emitted by Earth.
Clouds can briefly saturate the atmospheric radiation window (8-13µm) through which some Earth radiation passes directly to space (those hot and sticky overcast nights produce this effect - that is greenhouse but has nothing to do with carbon dioxide).
Greenhouse gases can not obstruct this window although ozone absorbs in a narrow slice at 9.6µm.
Adding more greenhouse gases which absorb in already saturated bandwidths has no net effect.
:-? thats completely wrong.. :o
how do you define saturated.. you change the molecular composition ratios continously which can handle different enthalpy levels how can you say that.. :-?
No, it's not completely wrong. There are differing views on this, but only in the degree of saturation, I think. Let me explain with a bit of stolen text ( ;) )
"Furthermore each constituent of an atmosphere reacts slightly differently to incoming radiant energy. As a result each constituent can only operate as a greenhouse gas with certain limited bandwidths of incoming energy. If there is not enough energy of the right bandwidth coming in then the greenhouse effect of a particular constituent stops. That is why it is often said that the greenhouse effect of CO2 declines logarithmically as the available bandwidth gets used up. Some say that at the current level of 380 parts per million we are close to saturation as regards more warming effect from extra CO2."
I can't say for sure that the foregoing is definitely the case, but given the spectrometry research which is still going on, we can say that it is clearly not an easily dismissed theory...at least not as easy as you dismissed it. ;)
As I said, Cem, it makes a refreshing change to deal with the science and you have prompted me to dig deep into my stock of research papers! :y
-
89 PW of energy falls on the earth (89 x 1015 W)
we use 15 terrawatts (15 x 1012 W)
So we currently consume a VERY small fraction of a percentage of energy compared to what the sun provides....hence we have one hell of along way to go before we get even close to this scenario cem
-
I am not going to get fully involved again in one of these very interesting, but sometimes fraught, debates on the global warming issue which could or perhaps may be not, down to man.
However, just to prompt thought in another direction, we all face a much bigger threat from nature; the super-volcano under Yellowstone National Park. When, not if, that goes up global warming will not be the problem, although climate change will undoubtedly be so!
Scientists are monitoring 'the Park', and the situation is not getting any better.
Sorry Cem to slightly go off your threads track, but super-volcanoes, which scientist believe number 5 around the world, just bring the whole subject of natural threat to humans in perspective. What will get us first? Global warming, climate change, or the Yellowstone Super-Volcano??
;) ;) ;) ;)
yep.. Lizzie.. you are right.. when those volcanoes erupt , ashes can fill a serious portion of the athmosphere stopping suns radiation and start to cool down the earth :o :(
eh, we wont burn up but froze alive instead ;D
Yes, we will go into an ice age lasting many, many decades!! :o :o
prepare your winter tires ;D ;D :y
-
Will I be alive when we fry? No? That's OK then :y ;D
-
It also means that if we cover France with solar panels we will have plenty of energy.....gets my vote!
-
89 PW of energy falls on the earth (89 x 1015 W)
but keep in mind not all of it being absorbed.. depending on the terrain type..
we use 15 terrawatts (15 x 1012 W)
So we currently consume a VERY small fraction of a percentage of energy compared to what the sun provides....hence we have one hell of along way to go before we get even close to this scenario cem
lets say today we simply release 1/1000..
(must admit its worse than I expect)
but question is for how long ? :-/
-
89 PW of energy falls on the earth (89 x 1015 W)
but keep in mind not all of it being absorbed.. depending on the terrain type..
we use 15 terrawatts (15 x 1012 W)
So we currently consume a VERY small fraction of a percentage of energy compared to what the sun provides....hence we have one hell of along way to go before we get even close to this scenario cem
lets say today we simply release 1/1000..
(must admit its worse than I expect)
but question is for how long ? :-/
but keep in mind not all of it being absorbed.. depending on the terrain type
As there is more water than landmass on the planet is the possibility for absorbition not greater in that case?
-
now some parts from the link
This discussion is on greenhouse effect and possible enhanced greenhouse, but that's a long way from anthropogenic effect in total. Whether or not they really affect global mean temperature, human endeavors have significant local effects. yess
The heat island effect mentioned above or the local effect of increased water vapor from large scale irrigation schemes would be good examples. Then there's land use change which can be variable depending on latitude -- replacing dark forest with wheat fields might significantly affect local albedo and cooling one region while denying shade in a more heavily irradiated region might cause ground heating through increased absorption.
There are many effects in a hugely complex system, some will be negative, some positive
nope.. all negative.. human based structures absorb more radiation from the sun compared to nature..
I feel, you're misunderstanding the point the author makes. He is taking about positive and negative feedbacks. Replacing a forest with a corn field is a negative feedback as it will reflect heat away from the earth's surface, whereas a urbanisation is a positive feedback as it absorbs IR radiation.
and all represent change, although that is neither good nor bad in and of itself. That humans affect the region of their activities is true -- that enhanced greenhouse from human activity is known to be a current or imminent catastrophe is not. And this document is only dealing with greenhouse effect and "global warming."
nope.. these are all combined effects and you cant cut critical parameters from the eqn ;D
Cem, the paper merely deals with the greenhouse theory, as the author states. Of course there are many drivers of climate, such as ocean current oscillations, solar flux and goodness knows what else. He is merely stating that he is explaining the greenhouse effect in isolation.
Remember:
Water vapor and carbon dioxide are major greenhouse gases.
Water vapor accounts for about 70% of the greenhouse effect, carbon dioxide somewhere between 4.2% and 8.4%.
thats purely an assumption not science as CO2 levels continously increasing and the ratio cant be fixed forever.. thats just for a specific point at time dimension :-/
Well, CO2 may be increasing but, at 390pp, or 0.039% of the atmosphere it wold take a long, long, time to alter these % ratios outside the bands mentioned. Also, the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades. (See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm).
Much of the wavelength bands where carbon dioxide is active are either at or near saturation.
Water vapor absorbs infrared over much the same range as carbon dioxide and more besides.
Clouds are not composed of greenhouse gas -- they are mostly water droplets -- but absorb about one-fifth of the longwave radiation emitted by Earth.
Clouds can briefly saturate the atmospheric radiation window (8-13µm) through which some Earth radiation passes directly to space (those hot and sticky overcast nights produce this effect - that is greenhouse but has nothing to do with carbon dioxide).
Greenhouse gases can not obstruct this window although ozone absorbs in a narrow slice at 9.6µm.
Adding more greenhouse gases which absorb in already saturated bandwidths has no net effect.
:-? thats completely wrong.. :o
how do you define saturated.. you change the molecular composition ratios continously which can handle different enthalpy levels how can you say that.. :-?
No, it's not completely wrong. There are differing views on this, but only in the degree of saturation, I think. Let me explain with a bit of stolen text ( ;) )
"Furthermore each constituent of an atmosphere reacts slightly differently to incoming radiant energy. As a result each constituent can only operate as a greenhouse gas with certain limited bandwidths of incoming energy. If there is not enough energy of the right bandwidth coming in then the greenhouse effect of a particular constituent stops. That is why it is often said that the greenhouse effect of CO2 declines logarithmically as the available bandwidth gets used up. Some say that at the current level of 380 parts per million we are close to saturation as regards more warming effect from extra CO2."
I can't say for sure that the foregoing is definitely the case, but given the spectrometry research which is still going on, we can say that it is clearly not an easily dismissed theory...at least not as easy as you dismissed it. ;)
As I said, Cem, it makes a refreshing change to deal with the science and you have prompted me to dig deep into my stock of research papers! :y
good one ;D :y
-
Its nice here, innit? 8-)
Nicer than yesterday/early this morning..... ;)
Thanks for that...... :y
-
Its nice here, innit? 8-)
Nicer than yesterday/early this morning..... ;)
Thanks for that...... :y
:y :y
-
Its nice here, innit? 8-)
Nicer than yesterday/early this morning..... ;)
Thanks for that...... :y
Yes, the climate is indeed temperate H 8-) :y
-
Its nice here, innit? 8-)
Nicer than yesterday/early this morning..... ;)
Thanks for that...... :y
Yes, the climate is indeed temperate H 8-) :y
A grand evening for supping Pimms on ice amongst friends and debating the intricacies of the meaning of life and indeed, the future of life...
Don't mind me please peeps. I said my bit earlier this morning when it all went Pete Tong. Yabber and debate away, just beware of copy/paste overload. Short, succinct and to the point will keep an audience enthralled, rather than Death by Powerpoint or similar.... ;D
-
Its nice here, innit? 8-)
Nicer than yesterday/early this morning..... ;)
Thanks for that...... :y
Yes, the climate is indeed temperate H 8-) :y
A grand evening for supping Pimms on ice amongst friends and debating the intricacies of the meaning of life and indeed, the future of life...
Don't mind me please peeps. I said my bit earlier this morning when it all went Pete Tong. Yabber and debate away, just beware of copy/paste overload. Short, succinct and to the point will keep an audience enthralled, rather than Death by Powerpoint or similar.... ;D
Does that mean it's time for the port and cigars soon?
-
Its nice here, innit? 8-)
Nicer than yesterday/early this morning..... ;)
Thanks for that...... :y
Yes, the climate is indeed temperate H 8-) :y
A grand evening for supping Pimms on ice amongst friends and debating the intricacies of the meaning of life and indeed, the future of life...
Don't mind me please peeps. I said my bit earlier this morning when it all went Pete Tong. Yabber and debate away, just beware of copy/paste overload. Short, succinct and to the point will keep an audience enthralled, rather than Death by Powerpoint or similar.... ;D
Does that mean it's time for the port and cigars soon?
Only if you promise to wear your tasselled hat and Paisley pattern smoking jacket, Cap'n. :)
-
Its nice here, innit? 8-)
Nicer than yesterday/early this morning..... ;)
Thanks for that...... :y
Yes, the climate is indeed temperate H 8-) :y
A grand evening for supping Pimms on ice amongst friends and debating the intricacies of the meaning of life and indeed, the future of life...
Don't mind me please peeps. I said my bit earlier this morning when it all went Pete Tong. Yabber and debate away, just beware of copy/paste overload. Short, succinct and to the point will keep an audience enthralled, rather than Death by Powerpoint or similar.... ;D
Does that mean it's time for the port and cigars soon?
Only if you promise to wear your tasselled hat and Paisley pattern smoking jacket, Cap'n. :)
It's in the wash after the weekend B.
-
Its nice here, innit? 8-)
Nicer than yesterday/early this morning..... ;)
Thanks for that...... :y
Yes, the climate is indeed temperate H 8-) :y
A grand evening for supping Pimms on ice amongst friends and debating the intricacies of the meaning of life and indeed, the future of life...
Don't mind me please peeps. I said my bit earlier this morning when it all went Pete Tong. Yabber and debate away, just beware of copy/paste overload. Short, succinct and to the point will keep an audience enthralled, rather than Death by Powerpoint or similar.... ;D
Does that mean it's time for the port and cigars soon?
2130 hrs at the earliest Z. :y :y
At mess dinners the following would have been sung to any females present before getting down to the more serious task of acting the ejitt, consuming vast amounts of drink and generally talking balls; - it was the 70's after all. ;D ;D :y
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqzYIpIUW7w&feature=related[/media]
-
Its nice here, innit? 8-)
Nicer than yesterday/early this morning..... ;)
Thanks for that...... :y
Much, much, nicer. I can personally vouch for that. ;)
Debating the actual science is not only less confrontational, it also highly educational. Thanks to all for their input and to Cem for kicking it all off! :y :y