Is global warming even real?

Plants use osmosis to pump water from the roots to the leaves. This is true even for salt water plants, that will also use osmosis to pump water to the leaves, to where some fresh water will respire; drip. This conceptually offers a natural solar way to desalinate water. We could set up salt water plant farms, on floating islands, that respire fresh water in the canopy that is harvested with a dehumidifier. Many people may not like mechanical devices taking up landscape; coal fired desalination plant, but everyone would like an arboretum than makes a running stream of fresh water.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think the green house gases are real, I am unsure of their longterm effects

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's what we have science for.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Or had it for. Republicans are trying to (or have? I'm not fully up to date) CUT BUDGET of NASA for all Earth investigation - especially those getting global data via satellite about the Global Warming / Climate Change studies.

I.e. There are funds, only for NASA looking away from earth, not at it. Ignorance is not only "bliss" it avoids doing thing most the rich supporters of Republicans don't want done - restrictions on fossil fuels, Carbon capture, etc.

 

Not likely to get even 5% of what the dehumidifier would collect if inside a large clear-plastic bubble that lets ALL the solar energy heat a foot deep layer of slowly exchanged sea water resting on the insulating, slightly submerged, bubble's floor.

I.e. a large scale version of device Billvon mentioned in post 467:
"An old US survival distiller was an inflatable sphere 24 inches across and produced about 2 liters a day."

I don't have data but bet less than 1% of the sunlight plants absorb goes into capillary lifting of sap up to leaves where some could be transpired, as water, to the air. Also it would not be only water - Do you know why the Blue Ridge Mountains are called that? Answer oil smog is transpired.

 

The main suspicion I have with Manmade global warming, is the fact that the liberals support it. If you check, there is almost nothing the liberals have supported that benefit everyone. They tend to pick things that benefit only their group, while growing government and costing the tax payer big money for a special interest group to buy votes.

Big oil, at least means cheap fuel that benefits both liberals and conservatives. The price of gasoline fell to about $2.50/gallon in the US, in spite of the Democratic party attempt to tax and regulate it, so solar can appear more cost effective. The private sector and free market did this so all could save money. The solar stuff was not ready for the big time yet and needed to be propped with crony capitalism that got shipped overseas to China. The new liberal tactic to create an extrapolation to disaster, that caters to the emotional vector thinking of liberalism.

When Gore started his global warming business, that has earned him hundred of millions of dollars, many of his claims did not pan out. This did not even raise a yellow flag in the liberal mind. That brain is not designed to think. If the manmade global warming, now branded as climate change, is real, why do you need more money to investigate it? Isn't the data already there? I thought Gore had all the answers and this was a done deal. The smoking gun is still shooting blanks and more money is need to find silver bullets.

 

I believe that data shows a slight warming of the earth over the past 100 years. Where I disagree is the source of this warming, since the earth has done this in the past, many times, before man.

One trick that is used to make the modern data appear like a smoking gun, is the modern data is collected, directly, with modern science instruments. The older historical data, from the last ice age, for example, is collected indirectly and needs to use assumptions. What we have are apples being compared to oranges.

For example, a historical inference data point might a tree ring. A tree ring can tell us something about the weather for a year, whether was rainy or not that year. But it can't be used to tell us about the day to day movement of weather or any shifts we may attribute to climate change. With modern data, we can measure a wide range of parameters, second by second, and make note of any record or unique occurrence. The tree ring only gives a yearly average of a few things and we miss all that.

The climate change brand could not function properly, in the free market, with just tree ring data. Picture this, once a year, they could read a ring and say this was an average year, now for other news. The brand needs the second to second data, so all unique details across the country can appear much more dynamic; climate change. The analogy is comparing the marquee photo for a movie, to the movie, and saying these are apples to apples. Instead of going to the next big movie, we can just look at the marquee poster, and go home. They are the same thing when it comes to weather data.

To normalize the data, we can't go back to the past and use modern tools. However, we can limit modern data, to marquee data, like tree rings, so past and present, use the same rules and the bias of assumptions is normalized. The climate change brand and industry will not want this, since movies sell better than marquee posters.

 

Did anyone see the latest data from NASA, that was released, yesterday. The data indicates that the polar caps have not receded since 1979, when they first started to measure this.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...d-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/

 

Well, it isn't surprising that a man who is paid by the Heartland Institute (a Koch funded organization) to spread lies and misinformation about global warming is doing his job and writing false and frankly silly articles like the one you referenced. Just a quick reading of the article, shows some glaring problems. For one, the polar ice cap includes ice over land and water. Your Koch funded paid hack excludes land based ice when he refers to the polar ice cap. He either doesn't know what the polar ice cap is or he is being deliberately disingenuous. I suspect its probably some combination of the two. And it shouldn't be surprising that this same article is showing up verbatim across the internet though attributed to different writers.


This is what NASA actually said:

The sea ice cover is one of the key components of the climate system. It has been a focus of attention in recent years, largely because of a strong decrease in the Arctic sea ice cover and modeling results that indicate that global warming could be amplified in the region by a factor of about 3 to 5 times on account of ice-albedo feedback. This results from the high reflectivity (albedo) of the sea ice compared to ice-free waters. A satellite-based data record starting in late 1978 shows that indeed rapid changes have been occurring in the Arctic, where the perennial ice cover has been declining at the rate of about 13% per decade and the ice cover as a whole has been declining at the lesser rate of about 5% per decade. In the Antarctic, the trend is opposite to that in the Arctic, with the sea ice cover increasing at about 1 to 2 % per decade. This is despite unusual warming in the Antarctic Peninsula region and declines in the sea ice cover in the Amundsen/Bellingshausen Seas of about 6% per decade. In the Arctic, a slight recovery in the sea ice cover has been observed in 2008 and 2009, following a major decline of the ice in 2007, while in the Antarctic, the sea ice cover was more extensive than normal in 2007, 2008, and 2009. Shown below are up-to-date satellite observations of the sea ice covers of both the Arctic and the Antarctic, along with comparisons with the historical satellite record of more than 30 years. The plots and color coded maps are chosen to provide information about the current state of the sea ice cover and how the most current daily data available compare with the record lows and record highs for the same date during the satellite era..

http://neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov/csb/index.php?section=234

Given that the Koch brothers, the guys who pay the author's pay check are oil men and the owners of media outlets in which this article appears are owned by oil men, it is not surprising to see them lie about global warming. It's what they do. It's what they have done.

 

So because “liberals” believe the science of global warming it must be wrong. Well that kind of sums it up for you, doesn’t it? Facts be damned, it’s all about party loyalty for you.

Nothing liberals have supported which benefited everyone . . . seriously? Maybe you want to tell your Republican buddies where their Social Security and Medicare programs came from. I’ll give you a hint, Republicans didn’t create those programs. Republicans actively opposed those programs. And as for growing government, what do you think Republicans did the last time they exercised absolute control of government? Is your memory so bad or your knowledge so poor as to not be aware of what Republicans did just a few years ago during the Baby Bush administration? Virtually, all the economic growth which occurred under Baby Bush was due to government expansion. That Republican idol, Ronald Reagan, greatly grew government while he was POTUS. There hasn't been any instance in which Republicans have slowed or reduced the growth of government - "dem" facts again. The only POTUS to actually reduce government is our current POTUS, and he isn't a Republican. The recovery would have been stronger and faster were it not for the thousands of government jobs that have been shed each month since Obama was sworn into office.

Hmm, and I don’t suppose you have evidence of Democratic attempts to raise the price of gasoline? No, you don’t, because none exists. Because Democrats didn’t attempt to tax or to add more regulations, you are just mindlessly repeating Republican talking points yet again.
For nearly 100 years and especially after WWII, the government has protected infant industries and has invested heavily in developing industries. For example, there would be no internet were it not for government investment. There would be no microwaves, cell phones, and many of our most powerful medical technologies and drugs would not exist were it not for government investment. But the fact remains, your assertion the US government manipulated gasoline prices in order to protect them from price competition is just nonsense and as usual you have absolutely no evidence to support your beliefs.

In Kansas, a solid red Republican controlled state, the governor’s failed trickledown fiscal policies has caused the state to seriously consider raising the gasoline tax. In a few days or weeks, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Republicans in the state raise the gasoline tax in order to remedy the nearly billion dollar hole in the state budget caused by the governor’s pursuit of trickledown economics. So ironically, the only ones seriously looking at increasing the gasoline tax are Republicans.

Well Republicans like to accuse Al Gore of profiting from his environmental efforts. Gore denies it, and Republicans have been unable to offer any definitive proof of their claims. Maybe it didn’t raise a yellow flag in the “liberal brain” because Republicans offered no evidence to support their accusations. Yeah, “liberal minds” require evidence and reason– fancy that. Whereas Republicans like you have no use for evidence and reason and just mindlessly repeat what they have been told by the likes of Limbaugh and his league of ditto heads. You are yet again mindlessly and dutifully repeating what you have been told to repeat by your Republican masters.

And specifically, just what claims did Gore make which have not panned out?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Dittohead

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But think of the profits to be made before average temperature goes up 5C. Rich CEOs will grow their own food in parts of now ice covered Northern Canada.

 

The things with liberals is they don't practice critical thinking skills, and therefore cannot react, in real time, to data that should raise a yellow flag to the rational mind. Instead they will go into denial, with a conspiracy theory, that uses buzz words like Koch Brothers or Tea Party, to get the thoughtless mob panicked. Liberalism reminds me of an abused woman, who won't see that her husband; leadership, is a lying scoundrel, but rather continues to remember the good ole days.

This data was released a few days ago, but it was known much longer and was delayed. This is why global warming is now marketed and rebranded as climate change. They had to wait until the new brand; line of bull, was accepted by the abused wife. Warming, even for an abused wife, creates images of melting ice in spring or the ice in her ice tea melting near the pool. The fear was this data may cause her to sense the husband was cheating and she may begin to question. Climate change is more ambiguous and can mean anything, including the polar caps not melting, due to some convoluted logic where warm means colder, and cold means hot, and up and down are all relative. Until this is sorted out with more funding, he is not cheating or lying; benefit of the doubt.

If you look to Hilary Clinton, and erasing her personal server to hide e-mails, like Obama and the IRS did, the abused wife will not see this, even if she sees it. She is in an fantasy about the good ole days and the possibility of him changing back. This is why if liberals believe in something, there is often an abusive wife syndrome connected. The cheating husband may do well, but he is supported by a wife who will not think things through and maintain loyalty through denial/conspiracy.

All the CO2 that is being added to the atmosphere, was in the atmosphere, at one time. The CO2 comes from fossil fuels. These fossil fuels formed from ancient life, that had to pull CO2 from the air and water, to make the fossils. At one time the CO2 was much much higher or else where did life get the CO2 to fix it as fossil fuels?

Change is part of the earth. Liberals want to restore the land to a given point of time. Why pick modern history as the ideal time, then complain about the effect of man? Why not allow it to return to before fossil fuels when life was lush and fossil fuels was not yet there. The reason is the abused wife was thrown a bone of ambiguity for her faith.

As far as the rich arguments, democrats are just as rich as republicans. San Fransisco is not cheap to live and is dominated by rich democrats. Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry are part of that evil rich, sitting near the top of Congress. All Gore made over a billion dollars selling the polar cap melted by now. The abused wife can't see the lying husband.

I am an independent, not a republican, but at least republicans are not based on the abused wife model of conformity and denial. We can do an experiment. I will bring up data and see if this can be accepted or denied via conspiracy. I show the cheating husband to see if this is defended.

 

Idea I guess, is "ignorance is bliss" at least when it comes to knowing the risk of a disaster from climate change.

I notice that Wellwisher, continues to argue that there is little danger as CO2 levels have been higher in the past. I.e. inferring that this has all been surived before. Or claims: "this time is NOT different." despite the measured facts, including a very different RATE of CO2 release - now much faster, and causing CH4 concentration to rapid rise with no end in sight. They are now three times higher than at any point in the last 800,000 year and climbing fast as graph below shows:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Also photo below show bubbles of CH4 coming to the surface of the Arctic Ocean, even though the IPCC and many other's theory states that is impossible as their vertical terminal speed of tiny bubbles is so low that they would dissolve in the water before reaching the surface except where depth is small (continental shelf):

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This photo taken by US and two other countries research group. More at: http://www.theweathernetwork.com/ne...ubbling-up-from-the-arctic-ocean-floor/33078/

I have developed a math model showing how this happens: Basically the bubble concentration at the ocean floor can become high enough that column above the CH4 leaking source gains buoyancy and accelerates (at an ever faster speed as bubbles expand with reducing pressure) because the buoyant force constantly increases up to the surface. When it gets there, the upward momentum can carry the CH4 rich water more than a meter ABOVE the surface - makes the surface appear as if violently boiling as shown in this video:
The 30 second interval (6:05 to 6:35 of the video) shows the ocean as if "boiling."

This time is VERY different* due to the new and extremely rapid RATE of CO2 release plus its half life increasing by ~0.3 years per year now. For 800,000 + years the production rate of OH radical by harsh Solar UV was greater than the release rate of CH4. So CH4 concentration remained low; now that has reversed. I.e. CH4 is entering the air and destroying the OH- faster than it can be generated. (Their reaction kills both of them, making CO2 and water.)
* A massive extinction event, worse the "great extinction" that killed most creatures then living is possible.

Don't be mislead by posters like Wellwisher, who seem ignorant of the facts above and many others not mentioned here.
Read at "Arctic Emergency Group" site for some of them.

By my count, there are now about 33 different positive feed back mechanisms at work making the effects of the others, if considered alone, WORSE.

 

Time to edit post 493 expired when I noted an important omission in bold paragraph near end. It should be:

This time is VERY different* due to the new and extremely rapid RATE of CO2 release plus the half life of CH4 in the air increasing by ~0.3 years per year now. For 800,000 + years the production rate of OH radical by harsh Solar UV exceeded the release rate of CH4. So CH4 concentration remained low; now that has reversed. I.e. CH4 is entering the air and destroying the OH- faster than it can be generated. (Their reaction kills both of them, making CO2 and water.) That mutual destruction is slower now as the OH radical concentration declines (and that of CH4 grows).

* A massive extinction event, worse than the "great extinction" which killed most creatures then living is possible.

 

There are probably more than that. Do you think there are any negative feedback mechanisms?

 

Certainly. Perhaps the black body T^4 law is an important one. I. e. as Earth's warms, say from average of 294 to 300k, A 2% increase the IR leaving the surface will increase 8.4%, but unfortunately the energy leaving Earth may actually decrease if the concentration of water vapor in air also increases with the warming as it will, even if the release of other green house gases by man stopped.

This is because much of the IR leaving the surface will be absorbed in the atmosphere and re radiated (in all directions equally). Generally speaking, the only IR that does escape earth comes from the top "optical depth" and the bottom of that will move higher with the increase of water vapor and green house gases. Nothing can radiate more intensely than a black body (at the wave length of interest) and higher up, the atmosphere is COLDER. Thus to the extent that the IR trying to escape earth is black body limited in the green house gas's absorption band, as is usually the case, this "negative feed back" is actually a positive one. I. e. a warmer surface of a "water planet" can actually result in LESS heat radiated to space. That is basically how Venus switched to its "Hot Stable State" (lead is molten on the surface.)*

The question whether or not the T^4 effect is a positive or negative feed back is complex. Certain for wave length NOT being absorbed in the atmosphere it is a negative feed back.

More rapid grow of plants with higher CO2 concentration is clearly a negative feed back, in the short term, but that greater biomass storage of carbon ends when they are decaying as much as growing. With the current drought, the Amazon "rain forests" is losing more carbon via decay than storing - is a net source of CO2.

Clouds will increase as the surface warms - that too is very complex to determine if the net effect is a positive or negative feed back.

I'm not able to think of any completely certain long term negative feed back, but bet they do exist.

* If earth switches, then the surface atmosphere will be what we call "supper heated steam" - with significant part of the oceans in the air as water vapor, the surface pressure will be higher than most boilers can stand with out exploding.

 

As the planet warms, more water is able to evaporate. More water in the atmosphere means more clouds, with clouds reflecting the solar radiation back into space.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

More clouds, also means more low pressure zones, as water vapor/gas, dissolved in the atmosphere, by the sun and warming, separates its partial pressure contribution, from the atmosphere. When you can or jar fruits and vegetable, you boil the contents and then place the lids on the cans. As the steam cools and condenses back into liquid, a vacuum is pulled. The gas phase above the fruit loses water vapor into liquid water.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As the earth heats, more water evaporates to increase cloud cover and solar reflection. This also increases the number and extent of low pressure zones; storms. The more zones of low pressure, causes more convection and mixing of the atmosphere; left to right and up to down. Big storms can cause ice or hail to fall to the cool ground level.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The CO2 does act as insulator with positive feedback, while water is a moderator, that uses negative feedback. Water can also scrub CO2 to feed plants.

 

What you ignore is clouds reflect ALL wave lengths.

The Green house gases only block a small fraction of the IR trying to escape earth; but clouds block ALL the wave lengths that are trying to escape earth. - The air/ water interface surfaces of individual water drops scatter All radiation. Also the photons that pass thru the drop, the majority, are refracted so have a longer "escape" path. I.e. will surface scatter many more times than if they could continue traveling directly away from the surface.

Also clouds do this at night too, when they have no offsetting reflection of sunlight. No one knows, it is quite controversial, whether the net effect of clouds is a positive or negative feed back. You, as usual, know a little, but "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

- - - - - - -
Sodium Iodide crystals can be quite large* and very efficiently interact with gamma rays to generate visible photons inside them. That is why they are the most commonly used detectors of gamma rays. I.e. on one, surface a photo-multiplier tube is attached to detect these secondary photons; but most of these photons are not initially headed towards the side of the crystal with the photo-tube attached. They exit some other surface and must be reflected back inside the crystal to "try again" to exit where the photo tube is. Typically they will exit at the wrong surface more than 10 times before going to the photo tube. I.e. need to be reflected back inside more than 10 times.

The best metallic reflectors can not achieve reflection coefficient r =0.95. but lets assume they could: (0.95)^10 = 0.60 and in practice more than half of the photons that try to be reflected by a metal will instead be absorbed by it. But there is a better reflector than any metal: a mass of very tiny (lots of surface interfaces) very transparent crystals (essentially zero absorption) crystals. So the side of large Sodium Iodide gamma ray detector crystals where the photo tube is not have a layer (amazingly only a few mm is thick enough) of millions of these tiny, clean crystals. They, like cloud, eventually scatter the photons back into the detection crystal (like clean water drop clouds do for ALL the photons trying to leave the earth). Instead of losing 40% of the photons with a metallic reflector these tiny scattering crystal surrounding the big Sodium Iodide crystal send almost all "escaping" photons back into it to try again, and again, ... to exit where the photo tube is. A thick cloud of clean water drops will do the same - I.e. send ALL the surface radiated photons back down to the surface, - block their escape from earth.

* I know a little about NaI gamma ray detectors because in one secrete project related to covertly following a submarine, even remaining kilo meters behind it, so it did not know it was being "tailed," I used a Sodium Iodide crystal/ photo tube detector that was six inches in diameter - same size as the big photo tube.

 

That's not necessarily true. It might work out that way, and it might not.