This is where I post, and you can post too!
Published on September 13, 2007 By Dan Greene In The Environment
I am finally becoming convinced that this is a real, man made + natural phenomenon. I have become convinced through making an in depth analysis, and seeing how science rather then politics or politicians are providing the tools to conclude that a potentially serious global warming series of events and trends is occurring.

The first bit of evidence you need to know when researching this, is understanding the "actual greenhouse greenhouse effect" and the "greenhouse effect of the Earth".

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/earthguide/diagrams/greenhouse/

Heat which is energy is transferred in 3 ways, conduction convection and radiation.

In a greenhouse the greenhouse gets heated from the sunlight. This light pours inside and warms the ground inside the greenhouse, which in turn warms the air just above it, this air through a process called diffusion which is when molecules move from an area of greater density to an area of lower density, fuels convection. Warmer air is less dense and cooler air is denser, cooler air being denser falls, while warmer air rises. Because the greenhouse is enclosed, it is a closed system, just like the Earth, however inside the Earth's closed system much more convection is occurring and the majority of heat that makes it into the Earth's system is re-radiated back at the planet.

The energy that travels through the vacuum of space is all radiation. On the Earth most of this energy is transferred via radiation and convection. Inside a greenhouse, sunlight penetrates the glass or plastic covering, via radiation. The glass or plastic is impermeable meaning that the molecules in a gas form cannot penetrate it and are trapped. Since they are trapped, the energy remains largely trapped, this is what increases the temperature inside the greenhouse.

On the Earth it works largely the same way, sunlight penetrates the atmosphere and is trapped. Some of it is re-radiated but a significant majority of that energy that gets into the system on Earth is drives out weather and climate.

The Earth's average surface temperature is about 33°C warmer than it would be without the greenhouse effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Greenhouse_Effect.png

When you increase the concentration of these greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which is occurring yearly, and has been since the industrial revolution, but not at the same magnitude as presently, the ability of the atmosphere to act as a stronger radiator of energy back into the Earth's system of energy containment is increased.

In the last 50 years the amount of greenhouse gases has steadily increased, measured in parts per million, is not at the highest level in recorded history.

We know that the rate is high because we can measure, and independently verify preserved samples, of ice, taken in the antarctic, which match up very consistently across the continent, as far back as about 800,000 years. The ice itself cannot be measured by temperature, as it doesn't remain the same temperature as it did since then, however it has remained a solid since the time, as evidence by the layers or freezing visually identifiable.

These layers, when measured for "greenhouse gases" show very consistent patterns, which correlate directly with temperature. As the presence of greenhouse gases increases the temperature of the climate increases, in direct proportion. This is important because it gives scientists the ability to accurately predict the trend that is is increased greenhouse gases present in the system, means increased average temperature.

Why is increased average temperature a concern? It has to do with raising sea levels, because of the polar ice melting, although very slowly, it is occurring. What happens when land masses are no longer covered by snow and ice, is very similar to what happens in a greenhouse, that landmass, is heated by radiation from the sun, and the air is warmed, and spreads out, further increasing the rates of convection and re-radiation of the energy from sunlight already trapped in the atmosphere.

Science as of yet, has no way of controlling either the amount of sunlight entering the Earth's atmosphere, or speeding up the process of removing the excess energy in the atmosphere, or reducing the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that are being produced and leading to the increased rate of energy accumulation inside the Earth's system.

Comments (Page 1)
5 Pages1 2 3  Last
on Sep 18, 2007
First I would like to say that you did good research and you tried to be logical in your presentation.

Here is where your mind became polluted with the religion of global warming which distorted your presentation. The religion is yours if you wish I am not going to deny you your beliefs if you wish to believe in money or global warming or horse crap as your god that is your business and I will not ridicule your religion.

I will however point out some facts that the religion of global warming tries to hide or obscure using fear and panic.

Let’s start with the Sun. The Sun is one of only two sources of heat for planet Earth. Without the Sun you have a ball of ice like the planets out past Pluto. Since we have put probes on Venus and Mars we have been able to document what was a theory back in the 1960’s which is that the Sun is getting hotter. It will continue to get hotter until it burns it’s self out. Once that happens all life will end in the solar system. One other thing that has been documented is that the planets are all getting warmer at the same rate. Venus and Mars with the Earth in the middle are all getting hotter by about one degree per century. This is not as linier as it sounds, when we have volcanic eruptions on the earth they lower the average temperature of the Earth by several degrees but on average we are still going up one degree, which means that the sun is warming more than one degree but it averages out over a century.

The other source of warmth for the planet is the planet Earth. The core of the Earth is hot, and responsible for breaking the Earth out of a 2 million year ice age by volcanic activity. The Earth has been warming up from that ice age for the last 10 thousand years. Man has only been dominant on the planet for the last 6 thousand years.
Ask yourself this question.
If the Earth goes through these cycles of hot and cold for the last three billion years what is it that man can do to harm the planet? We are currently in a break between ice ages. The last scientific prediction is that there is about 15 thousand years before we are in the next ice age. If man made global warming is a fact then the best we can hope for is to use it to slow down the next ice age. The Earths core is cooling and will become solid in about 2 billion years and when this happens all life on Earth will mimic the planet Mars as it is today. The core of Mars became solid some millions of years in the past so the clock is ticking people we get off the planet or mankind will be erased from the books as if we have never been here, except for the space probes that are moving away from us at 40 thousand miles an hour and our radio signals that degrade as they move farther away from us each second. Man made global warming is a hoax that has little meaning to mankind as we are all doomed one way or the other. There is more but I will let you chew on this for a while and then you can try to rebut it.

on Oct 14, 2007
Humanities' contribution of greenhouse gasses, is probably adjusting the equilibrium of the Earth and causing global warming. With the event in motion, and with little to stop its acceleration, nobody knows for certain where that leads the planet on the global scale.

Do you stop suddenly any and all contributing factors to the problem, without understanding it fully? No. Do you take measured and approaches that make sense at the time? Yes. The root cause of a lot of the CO2 emissions is carbon based fuel combustion and power generation from cheap fossil fuels. Exactly what effect, that has is not fully understood even 100 years after the invention of the automobile, however it is generally accepted that air pollution and smog occurs when you have dense traffic, and that you have higher ambient temperatures in cities as opposed to surrounding areas, due to localized greenhouse effect, and wasted heat energy from buildings. The best alternative to the automobile is an automobile that doesn't run on internal combustion but either capacitors or batteries. Most people, as you say, commute 10-20-30 miles a day, a battery powered vehicle can accomplish that twice a day no problem. For longer trips, people could rent an gas vehicle.

The problem with battery powered vehicles isn't people not wanting to drive them, or being conscience tenders of the environment. The problem is the monopoly of the automakers in this country. Brazil has 95-100 percent vehicles running on E100 ethanol, which they grow and harvest locally. Why can't that work for the USA? We grow crops better than anyplace on earth, yet, if the automakers didn't hold a monopoly on the market, deciding what the consumer wants, a vehicle like this could actually succeed. The Tucker, a vehicle which was the first to introduce seatbelts, was driven out of the market by the other automakers, which didn't feature seatbelts. It is a similar situation.

For generation of electricity, you need to find an equally cheap and plentiful resource to convert to energy as efficiently as coal and oil are. Unfortunately solar, and wind, are the only truely clean sources I know of and both are expensive capital wise. However if we spend the kind of money we are spending on Iraq, on a series of alternative energy projects, we'd have an electic car to rival the internal combustion one, and probably a huge solar manufacturing industry too.

The answer isn't ridding peoples lives of power or energy, you cannot stop or slow the need for power, beyond the reduce, reuse, recycle movement which is very valid. You can only become more efficient and intelligent in which industries and sources you acquire the power from. Nuclear energy is an interesting solution, as is solar, and fuel cells, if we were spending tens or hundreds of billions on fuel cells you could bet we'd have fuel cell power plants all over the place, and ridding out need to defend oil resources world wide.
on Oct 14, 2007
"If the Earth goes through these cycles of hot and cold for the last three billion
years what is it that man can do to harm the planet?"

Man is pumping in lots of CO2, and it is trapping more and more of the suns energy inside the Earth, and at a higher rate, than ever in history.

Perhaps the sun is getting hotter, or more solar energy is getting to us than in the past, so what Paladin? If we are in agreement that it is getting hotter than that's ok. If you wanna believe the sun is getting hotter fine, since neither of us have any way of knowing if the other is correct I suggest we wait for more data.

Either way, we have to do something about the problem in the next 50-100 years. I suggest since it makes economical sense to stop investing in fossil fuels and in renewable energies, solar, wind, and garbage convert, that we stop being dependent on oil and coal for power and for transport.
on Oct 14, 2007
I'm convinced that global warming is happening, though the exact reason why still eludes me. I'm thinking there is more than one factor. People could very well be the issue, as well as a natural global shift. CO2 is not helping matters at all, and shifting to alternative fuel sources would help a good bit as well as ween us off that whole foreign oil dependency thing.

...being a scientist in training, I have to pay attention to this...though I really hate the political aspect. Politics and science don't mix well.

~Zoo



on Oct 14, 2007
...being a scientist in training, I have to pay attention to this...though I really hate the political aspect. Politics and science don't mix well.


nor religion.

Personnally, Paladin, I find your denial as much dogmatic as you find belief in Global Warming, so stop using those terms to slander our point of view.

Let me tell you something: what is the economical advantage of global-warming-theory supporters for their points?

I can't find any that will give them any dollars by actually winning their point. Whatever money they make now in their fight (Like Al Gore), they will stop gaining it when governement will actually do something about it. They have nothing to gain by winning, only by fighting.

On the other side, what is the economical advantages of denials? I think it's pretty evident.

So, if we questionned the motives of both sides, I would follow the GW-theory supporters, simply because their goal is actually selfless, where the deniers are working in their own interest (thinking short-term, wanting to keep the stockholders happy)
on Oct 14, 2007
If humans are truly the cause of global warming, and IF the theory of evolution as we know it holds true, then we can predict a few scenarios based on what we know:

1. certain members of the species will adapt to the new climate. Others will die off.

2. With a catastrophic decline in the population, CO2 emissions will be reduced because there are fewer people alive to pollute. The problem will self correct.

3. The planet will still be here, albeit in an altered state. This is only the natural course of things.

Personally, I'm negotiating for a cabin in Fairbanks. I figure I'll be able to leave my kids some beachfront property in a temperate zone.
on Oct 14, 2007
certain members of the species will adapt to the new climate. Others will die off.


Unfortunately, if it happens too fast then a lot more species will die off. Evolution takes place over millenia.

The first things to die off will be tropical species, they have a shorter range of temperature tolerance. Artic animals would probably fair better...as long as they can find food.

~Zoo
on Oct 14, 2007
Evolution takes place over millenia.


this is correct. this is also incorrect.
on Oct 14, 2007
Artic animals would probably fair better


except the polar bear. they are to closely climit matched.
on Oct 14, 2007
this is correct. this is also incorrect.


Well, you don't bother explaining yourself, do you? I believe you're refering to microevolution and macroevolution. Mircoevolution only affects genetic diversity in a populations...so it's still the same organism, just with a certain set of genes. Macroevolution would be the only saving grace of some animals...but you would end up with completely new species when all is said and done.

except the polar bear. they are to closely climit matched.


It's not really the climate match, it's their food availability that's killing them. No ice packs to hunt on, so they're not doing so well. Some are finding ways to survive, but as a whole they're on the decline. Most artic animals do well in freezing to moderate temperatures because they experience such a huge range during the year. (The aquatic ones are a bit more limited.) I'd say anything above 15 degrees C would start being uncomfortable.

I'll be attending a lecture later this week that concerns polar bears and climate change, so I'll find out a bit more then.

~Zoo
on Oct 14, 2007
on one of the Galapagos islands. there were three species of sparrows(don't remember if they were really sparrows). one had a small beak, one had a medium beak, and one had a large beak. the one with the medium beak died out. scientists figured it would take the other two species 100 years to replace this dead species. it took 7.
on Oct 15, 2007
I am curious about 1 thing when it comes to talking about doing something about global warming. Dan Greene, is it your purpose of explaining ho we are the cause of global warming to stop global warming or to just postpone it?

The reason I ask this is because the way you,Al Gore, Sodiaho and others here sound is as if you wanna stop global warming but the solution you give, based on the theory of what is causing global warming, only slows down the effects postponing the problem as oppose to solving it.

The industrial revolution is being blamed for global warming so the solution would be to revert to pre-industrial times. But are we able to go back to riding horse, taking days instead of hours and moths instead of days to get from point A to point be? Are we all willing to give up A/C, satellite TV, computers, cellphones, refrigerators and American Airlines to save the planet? I mean lets be serious here, I don't see the point in us creating a little bit less CO2 and everything else that causes global warming of we still gonna destroy ourselves just not as fast. And I seriously doubt we can go from an oil driver world to alternative energy sources that "could" save the planet without going broke, crippling the economy, going to war and loosing millions of live in the process.

I'm sorry, but I just seem to have a problem with people who just don't look at the larger picture, who don't try to see future consequences of their choices and opinions when trying to find solutions to problems. There's a salsa song I like a lot from a Puerto Rican singer that says "the cure turns out to be worse than the sickness".
on Oct 15, 2007
But are we able to go back to riding horse,


sorry you can't have horses. its the methane. it is also all of the extra farm land that we would need to grow the food for the horses.


what i mean is if you give everyone 1 horse. which is what we have the usa in cars is at least one car for every person. not saying every person has a car.

that means that you now have 300,000,000 horses to feed and that give off gas. i wont mention the other waste product
on Oct 15, 2007

sorry you can't have horses. its the methane. it is also all of the extra farm land that we would need to grow the food for the horses.


what i mean is if you give everyone 1 horse. which is what we have the usa in cars is at least one car for every person. not saying every person has a car.

that means that you now have 300,000,000 horses to feed and that give off gas. i wont mention the other waste product


Well I'm not too sure horses would make up in gas what cars pollute but that does sound like a worse idea, not to mention all the crap on the floor 24/7. But can you imagine how these kinds of changes would affect the economy, and out lifestyle for that matter? I mean, imagine everyone having to change their cars just to avoid this theory of global warming? What about those who can't afford hybrids or electric cars? Don't expect me to sell my truck that is already paid for to get into a new expensive car just to save the planet. besides, who will buy my car? This just gets more and more rediculous the more you think about.

First it's an unproven theory, those who believe it wanna stop it but their solutions will only delay it, if we do try to stop global warming it would mean for everyone to stop using gas powered cars, factories would have to change their gas powered machines for eletric or other alternative fuel machines, power plants would have to be changed, airplanes, boats, generators. Am I making my point here? Do we really believe that driving our cars half as much or changing it for a less polluting car will make a difference? Are we trying to stop global warming or just trying to delay it?
on Oct 15, 2007
on one of the Galapagos islands. there were three species of sparrows(don't remember if they were really sparrows). one had a small beak, one had a medium beak, and one had a large beak. the one with the medium beak died out. scientists figured it would take the other two species 100 years to replace this dead species. it took 7.


Finches, actually. That's not exactly evolution, it's a competition factor. I'm not sure what specific study this is from, but I'll tell you about how they would fill the niche one species leaves behind. Large and small beaked finches cannot compete with each other(their feeding styles are dramatically different from eachother because of beak size), but the middle bird has to compete with both large and small species because it can handle foods from both ends of the spectrum, and that's probably the reason it died-too much competition. With it gone, the other two finches could flourish and take over the abandoned habitat and food sources. You said those two took over, which is exactly what they did...they didn't evolve, their behavior merely changed.

~Zoo
5 Pages1 2 3  Last