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 4)
5 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 
on Nov 17, 2007
"we haven't even look for oil on one continent as far as i know."

Which one would that be? Oh nevermind edit lol

Well it was agreed internationally way back when, that Antartica would be left alone and used for scientific research as it is tremendously not habitable, for a civilization. It's too damn cold.
on Nov 17, 2007
Well it was agreed internationally way back when, that Antartica would be left alone and used for scientific research as it is tremendously not habitable, for a civilization. It's too damn cold.


besides my point at the moment. and i know why it was left alone.
on Nov 17, 2007
I believe it would be much wiser for our nation to start actively finding other ways to generate power and energy, opposed to oil and coal. Coal is also a non renewable resource.


That is a reasonable suggestion, one I happen to agree with, but it has absolutely nothing to do with global warming.

Global warming is occurring, period. Man's role in it is trivial at most, the proverbial piss in the ocean. Any attempts to "stop" it would fail just as trying to stop a rolling 47-car freight train by standing in front of it would fail. I'm all for reasonable steps toward mitigating warming's effects on us to the extend we can and cleverly adapting to the inevitable change, but completely opposed to attempts at "fixing it" as that notion is way over our heads, I don't care how clever our scientists think they are, and frought with dangers we can't begin to anticipate.
on Nov 18, 2007
Daiwa, your response seems to indicate that you are firmly against the idea that this could be occurring because of in large part by man. Yet the existence of other problems, ozone depletion, acid rain, have been largely attributed to man. The surface of the planet looks somewhat different due to disforestation, and rapid urbanization. Do you not at least agree it would be wise, to perform more research and determine for sure what effects industries influence is having on global warming. It may not even be the CO2 effect, that is causing the greatest effect, it maybe other interactions we don't fully understand that causes the greatest effect.

I for one would love to get off the oil and coal energy supply, and move to an efficient and renewable supply. I firmly believe that if solar cells were the price of shingles, that people would cover their houses with them, and the electric company would service them for us, just like a plumber or electrician, when issues arise.

I don't think continuing to pollute the air with coal and oil energy is the way to go, but I could be wrong. Nobody knows what technology we'll have our hands on in 25 years.

on Nov 18, 2007

CO2 produced by humans is causing the recent increase in temperature is a hypothesis. But it has no evidence to support it. It's not even what one would label as a theory. It could be correct, it might not be correct.

Methane is also a green house gas. It traps heat at over 20X the level of CO2.  Moreover, while CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up some since the start of the industrial revolution, the rise in methane has gone up vastly more in the past 50 years in particular.

That is my first problem with the global warming religion (and it is a religion because most of its adherents know very little about it).  Dan Greene has, at least, researched it and I applaud him.

But at the end of the day, the hypothesis remains: CO2 is a green house gas. Green house gases trap heat. More trapped heat will cause temperatures to rise. Temperatures have risen in the northern hemisphere since 1976 slightly. Therefore, it must be CO2.

Of course, temperatures in the southern hemisphere have not risen and the antarctic ice cap has grown. 

But I will grant that the northern hemisphere has definitely increased in temperature.  And I'm willing to also grant that humans are probably helping it a long.

Therefore, what should be done?

First, we have to decide whether global warming is a "bad thing".  The case really hasn't been made that it really is a "bad thing" (Al Gore's ridiculous arguments that the sea level will suddenly rise by a dozen feet or whatever notwithstanding).

Then, we have to decide what we would do about it.  Even if we removed every car off the road, it would make a trivial impact on worldwide CO2.  Humans only produce 14% of the CO2 that goes into the air each year.  And CO2 only accounts for a couple % of the green house effect. (this data is available on the global warming advocate websites btw, they don't dispute these facts).

The bottom line, there is really very little we can do to affect the situation other than largely eliminating all worldwide use of fossil fuels AND largely moving to a vegetarian diet (methane levels have gone up because the population of animals for meat is now several BILLION -- people don't like talking about this fact).

As a meat eater and someone who likes to use energy, I don't really want to give up my pork chops or my air conditioning in the Summer.

Talk about raising fuel standards or Kyoto accords or what have you are not serious discussions as they would have no impact.

on Nov 18, 2007
I don't think continuing to pollute the air with coal and oil energy is the way to go, but I could be wrong. Nobody knows what technology we'll have our hands on in 25 years.


I didn't say it was the way to go, either. I have no problem with trying to learn more about how we can mitigate our impact on the environment, assuming that impact is a bad thing. The bugaboo is deciding whether our impact on the planet is negative or positive, which is a value judgement subject to all kinds of emotional influences, not a scientific theory subject to testing. Much of man's impact on the planet has been beneficial, witness our ability to sustain such a huge human population, assuming doing so is a good thing. We seem to assume that the extinction of a single species is evidence of our evil ways, when species have been going extinct without our help for millions upon millions of years.

The scale of the problem is so massive that there is no way we mere humans can get our arms or minds around it. Any significant intervention, anything that would actually work to change the climate, if such an intervention existed, would carry unfathomable risk of unintended consequences. The conceipt inherent in the notion that man can do something truly meaningful to "stop" global warming is monumental.

Sorry, but I'm not entrusting the future of our globe to Al Gore.
on Nov 19, 2007
Then, we have to decide what we would do about it. Even if we removed every car off the road, it would make a trivial impact on worldwide CO2. Humans only produce 14% of the CO2 that goes into the air each year. And CO2 only accounts for a couple % of the green house effect. (this data is available on the global warming advocate websites btw, they don't dispute these facts).


1) that is why we should not restrict our efforts to road
2) That is true that we are only a minor factor in the CO2 balance. However, we are unbalancing the cycle that the Earth has by producing/evacuating CO2.

Also, deforestation has to be taken into account. Because of this, Earth can absorb much less CO2 than before, which means we should really start stopping (or stop starting..? ) our CO2 emmissions, while working on technologies to help the Earth maintain a healthy CO2 balance. When that problem will be solved (and I have no doubt that we will solve it, if we actually start doing something about it), then the Greenhouse effect will be controlled.
on Nov 19, 2007
Also, deforestation has to be taken into account.



there are more trees in the usa today than there was in 1776.
on Nov 21, 2007
there are more trees in the usa today than there was in 1776.


congratulation for the stupid banalities, Danielost

First, I'd need to see some proofs on that claim
Second, even if it was true (which could be), there is still massive deforestation worldwide. And the USA are not totally responsability-free about this.

(On the other hand, they are not the sole responsibles. But it's pointless to talk responsability about that now)
on Nov 21, 2007
the forest area has decreased. but we have trees in areas that never had or had few trees such as the great plains. where you can walk down any street and see trees that wouldn't be there under natural reasons. and to show that i did look up the deforestation.




Prior to the arrival of European-Americans about one half of the United States land area was forest, about 4 million square kilometers (1 billion acres) in 1600. For the next 300 years land was cleared, mostly for agriculture at a rate that matched the rate of population growth. For every person added to the population, one to two hectares of land was cultivated.[27] This trend continued until the 1920s when the amount of crop land stabilized in spite of continued population growth. As abandoned farm land reverted to forest the amount of forest land increased from 1952 reaching a peak in 1963 of 3,080,000 km² (762 million acres). Since 1963 there has been a steady decrease of forest area with the exception of some gains from 1997. Gains in forest land have resulted from conversions from crop land and pastures at a higher rate than loss of forest to development. Because urban development is expected to continue, an estimated 93,000 km² (23 million acres) of forest land is projected be lost by 2050 [4], a 3% reduction from 1997. Other qualitative issues have been identified such as the continued loss of old-growth forest,[28] the increased fragmentation of forest lands, and the increased urbanization of forest land.[29].


WWW Link


and i did say more trees not more forest. i know i know play on words.
on Nov 21, 2007
the forest area has decreased. but we have trees in areas that never had or had few trees such as the great plains. where you can walk down any street and see trees that wouldn't be there under natural reasons. and to show that i did look up the deforestation.

Tress in the middle of city streets, don't promote animal life, and there is minimal if any benefit to an eco system of squirrels and rabbits without higher and lower life, in urban areas.
on Nov 21, 2007

Tress in the middle of city streets, don't promote animal life, and there is minimal if any benefit to an eco system of squirrels and rabbits without higher and lower life, in urban areas.


what about coons, black bears, coyotes, to name a few.
on Nov 24, 2007
lol, what are you trying to say?
on Nov 24, 2007
lol, what are you trying to say?


what i am trying to say is for every animal that is going extent. there is another one or two thriving. not counting the so called domesticated ones.
on Nov 25, 2007
right, um ok.
5 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5