Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[jereboam]

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!

[cem_devecioglu]

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 which I must blame on something

[cem_devecioglu]

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 

[Dishevelled Den]

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 which I must blame on something

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.

[cem_devecioglu]

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 which I must blame on something

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.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

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??

 

[Dishevelled Den]

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.

[cem_devecioglu]

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 

eh, we wont burn up but froze alive instead

[Lizzie_Zoom]

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 

eh, we wont burn up but froze alive instead

Yes, we will go into an ice age lasting many, many decades!!

[Nickbat]

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

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.. 

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! 

[Marks DTM Calib]

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

[cem_devecioglu]

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 

eh, we wont burn up but froze alive instead

Yes, we will go into an ice age lasting many, many decades!!

prepare your winter tires

[Mysteryman]

Will I be alive when we fry? No? That's OK then

[Marks DTM Calib]

It also means that if we cover France with solar panels we will have plenty of energy.....gets my vote!

[cem_devecioglu]

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 ?  :-/