Ozone Depletion NOT MAN caused!

[jesereL]

That was something interesting.

 

[wirebender]

That was something interesting.

Interesting that someone actually wanted to discuss a topic or interesting that no one was up to the discussion? Or both?

 

[Old Rocks]

Bender, old ass, you ain't posted a thing that shows that you are capable of discussing anything with reasonable intelligiance. Why re-invent the wheel? Post what people that have spent a life time studying the subjects involved here.

But then, that is the problem, isn't it. Those people all disagree with your version of "the way things oughter be". If I want real information and evidence, I surely will not ask someone that has already proven themselves to be a dumb ass.

 

[wirebender]

Bender, old ass, you ain't posted a thing that shows that you are capable of discussing anything with reasonable intelligiance. Why re-invent the wheel? Post what people that have spent a life time studying the subjects involved here.

I never expected you to be able to discuss the topic rocks. Clearly you don't understand the sicence.

But then, that is the problem, isn't it. Those people all disagree with your version of "the way things oughter be". If I want real information and evidence, I surely will not ask someone that has already proven themselves to be a dumb ass.

More evidence of you talking out of your ass. You don't have the slightest ide of what my "version" of anything is. You simply make an assumption and then tell yourself it is correct. I can understand you not wanting to look at the truth, or even come close to it but if you ever grow a set of cojones, let me know and we can have a discussion of the topic. The ozone hole scare is and always has been a fraud and chemistry proves it.

Hell, you haven't even been able to answer the most basic questions you have been asked; those being, what do you believe the ozone layer is, how do you think it got there, and what do you believe it does. Till you can answer such basic questions, in your own words, you aren't to be taken seriously.

 

[konradv]

I dont think konradv understands that air gets lighter with more water vapour either. he just refuses to believe that H2O drives the vast majority of heat transport away from the surface towards space.

Your analysis only works if water drove off ALL extra heat. Since you have said it doesn't, what happens when CO2 continues to build up? Wouldn't that "not quite all" part continue to build up, too? If you want to help us out in this thread, explain to Wirebender about energy absorption due to quatum changes in the electron cloud. He seems to think it's all about physical phase change!

 

[Big Fitz]

I hate to link, especially when common sense should mean one understands the worlds largest solar farm makes the worlds largest pile of shit somewhere in the world.

I guess these people can thank Old Crock and Chris, they can thank me after the government takes my money to clean the mess and compensate the people, they have a case in world court.

Solar Energy Firms Leave Waste Behind in China - washingtonpost.com

In China, a country buckling with the breakneck pace of its industrial growth, such stories of environmental pollution are not uncommon. But the Luoyang Zhonggui High-Technology Co., here in the central plains of Henan Province near the Yellow River, stands out for one reason: It's a green energy company, producing polysilicon destined for solar energy panels sold around the world. But the byproduct of polysilicon production -- silicon tetrachloride -- is a highly toxic substance that poses environmental hazards.

"The land where you dump or bury it will be infertile. No grass or trees will grow in the place. . . . It is like dynamite -- it is poisonous, it is polluting. Human beings can never touch it," said Ren Bingyan, a professor at the School of Material Sciences at Hebei Industrial University.

The situation in Li's village points to the environmental trade-offs the world is making as it races to head off a dwindling supply of fossil fuels.

Forests are being cleared to grow biofuels like palm oil, but scientists argue that the disappearance of such huge swaths of forests is contributing to climate change. Hydropower dams are being constructed to replace coal-fired power plants, but they are submerging whole ecosystems under water.



Likewise in China, the push to get into the solar energy market is having unexpected consequences.

With the prices of oil and coal soaring, policymakers around the world are looking at massive solar farms to heat water and generate electricity. For the past four years, however, the world has been suffering from a shortage of polysilicon -- the key component of sunlight-capturing wafers -- driving up prices of solar energy technology and creating a barrier to its adoption.

You know what's going to be REALLY intersting? When these developing industrial nations have had enough filth and pollution and start instituting their own clean air/clean water acts. Thanks to prosperity which they got from the improved industrial based, they will be able to afford it too.

You think solar energy was expensive to produce before when you factor in construction costs... you ain't seen nothin' yet when there is no poor country to exploit cheap labor and no environmental laws.

I know some will freak out by my saying there needs to be environmental protection in these nations, but that's because they will blythely forget that I am a conservationist. That means rational environmental policy based on man being on top with nature tended to, but subservient to him. Good stewards so to speak.

 

[IanC]

I dont think konradv understands that air gets lighter with more water vapour either. he just refuses to believe that H2O drives the vast majority of heat transport away from the surface towards space.

Your analysis only works if water drove off ALL extra heat. Since you have said it doesn't, what happens when CO2 continues to build up? Wouldn't that "not quite all" part continue to build up, too? If you want to help us out in this thread, explain to Wirebender about energy absorption due to quatum changes in the electron cloud. He seems to think it's all about physical phase change!

actually konradv, I think it is you who has trouble understanding the basic concepts of heat transport. you ignore the huge but non-linear ability of H2O to pump heat upwards past the bottleneck that CO2 helps to create. Heat wants to escape so when one avenue gets constricted then other routes get more heavily used. You erroneously believe that the effect of CO2 is not compensated elsewhere. Worse than that, the climate models actually are programed to multiply the effect of CO2! The models are too simplistic and demonstrably wrong because there is no hotspot above the tropics no matter how hard they try to twist the data.

I agree that CO2 has a small effect, on the order of 1C by calculation, but probably less than that once the overall system compensates for the extra heat. You are fixated on an increase of a small fraction while ignoring the large fraction that is water in its various forms. The error bars for H2O totally swamp the WHOLE EFFECT OF CO2! Until we get a much better understanding of the total system we are being foolishly reckless by contemplating wrecking the world's economy just to make ineffectual attempts to reduce the amount of plant food in the air.

 

[wirebender]

Your analysis only works if water drove off ALL extra heat. Since you have said it doesn't, what happens when CO2 continues to build up?

Still waiting for you to describe the mechanism by which you believe CO2 can trap and retain IR. The emission spectrum is evidence that all energy absorbed by CO2 is immediately released. Where does the "trapping" take place and how is it achieved?

 

[parkinson1963]

"The emission spectrum is evidence that all energy absorbed by CO2 is immediately released." True Statement, however the energy is released in all direction some of which returns to the earth, adding energy that would have escape to space. As you add CO2 to the system more of the energy is absorbed and released. This extra energy is what adds to the warming of the earth.

QED

 

[wirebender]

"The emission spectrum is evidence that all energy absorbed by CO2 is immediately released." True Statement, however the energy is released in all direction some of which returns to the earth, adding energy that would have escape to space. As you add CO2 to the system more of the energy is absorbed and released. This extra energy is what adds to the warming of the earth.

QED

So you believe that an object that is passively warmed can further warm the source of its heat? Do you believe you can set an electric heater whose output is 1000 watts per square meter on the floor in your home and put a reflector in front of that heater and by reflecting some energy back to that heater increase the output of your heater to more than 1000 watts per square meter? You believe that if you reflect some of your heater's energy back to it, you will, in some way, net some "extra" energy. Is that what you are telling me that you believe?

You are talking about free energy. Additional energy created without the benefit of work. Perpetual motion. If you beleive that can happen, and you can demonstrate how it can happen and prove it by experiment, then you have the keys to the world in your hand. You hold the secret to everything.

Explain how it might work. I am all ears.

 

[parkinson1963]

This is not free energy it is the retention of some of the energy emitted by the sun.
To use your analogy the heater 1000watts per meter2 is in the middle of my uninsulated house, net increase to the warmth of my house minimal, but add insulation to my house presto an increase in the warmth of my house.

No free energy just better utilization of available energy.

 

[IanC]

This is not free energy it is the retention of some of the energy emitted by the sun.
To use your analogy the heater 1000watts per meter2 is in the middle of my uninsulated house, net increase to the warmth of my house minimal, but add insulation to my house presto an increase in the warmth of my house.

No free energy just better utilization of available energy.

the problem with your house analogy is that the R-rating of the CO2 increase is very small and the hydrological cycle is the equivalent of having an open chimney on every wall. any increase in heat only makes the draft flow more quickly.

 

[wirebender]

This is not free energy it is the retention of some of the energy emitted by the sun.
To use your analogy the heater 1000watts per meter2 is in the middle of my uninsulated house, net increase to the warmth of my house minimal, but add insulation to my house presto an increase in the warmth of my house.

No free energy just better utilization of available energy.

You initially said:

This extra energy is what adds to the warming of the earth.

That statement is not compatable with the statment you just made. Either you have extra energy which can further warm the heat source or you do not. The global warming hypothesis requires that downward emitted radiation further warms the earth thus resulting in the earth emitting more IR than it recieves from the sun alone.

If I follow the statement you just made, then you are not claiming that CO2 and GHG's can warm the earth in any way. Your claim is that they merely slow cooling to some degree. You acknowledge that radiation emitted downward from CO2 molecules can not further warm the earth?

 

[parkinson1963]

wrong.

There is not more energy in the system just more retention of the energy.

The sun warms the earth.
The warm earth emits infrared radiation (heat) cooling the earth.
Some of that emitted IR is absorbed by CO2 and re-emitted in all directions some which hit the earth, adding heat back into the system.

While not a perfect analogy the CO2 in the atmosphere acts like insulation slowing down the leakage of heat into space. So more CO2 more insulation more heat retained by the earth.

 

[wirebender]

wrong.

Lets examine your statement then to see if I am wrong.

There is not more energy in the system just more retention of the energy.

Here you claim that there is no more energy. Easy enough. You say clearly that there is not more energy in the system.

The sun warms the earth.

The sun does indeed warm the earth.

The warm earth emits infrared radiation (heat) cooling the earth.

The earth does emit IR but you can't say that emitting the radiation during the day cools it off any more than you can say that your heater emitting its 1000wm2 cools it off so long as it is plugged in. The earth is emitting less radiation than it is recieving so that is one error in your claim.

Some of that emitted IR is absorbed by CO2 and re-emitted in all directions some which hit the earth, adding heat back into the system.

Now you are claiming that heat is being "added back" into the system with no work being done. Absorption and emission is not work. Any energy that is "added back" must be coming from somewhere and an object that is warmed passively (the atmosphere) can not further warm its source of heat (the earth). There is X amount of energy. No energy is being "added back" into the system. Any energy that is "added back" into the system must, by definition, increase the net energy within the system. Again, free energy, net energy gain with no work input, perpetual motion.

While not a perfect analogy the CO2 in the atmosphere acts like insulation slowing down the leakage of heat into space. So more CO2 more insulation more heat retained by the earth.

Your claim is in opposition to the GHG hypothesis which claims that downward radiation adds energy to the earth thus warming it and in turn it radiates more LW than it could as a result of the energy it gets from the sun.

At this point, you have said that there is no extra energy and that there is extra energy, which is it? If energy is being "added back" to the system, then the total energy in the system increases. Where does this extra energy come from?

 

[IanC]

I dont think konradv understands that air gets lighter with more water vapour either. he just refuses to believe that H2O drives the vast majority of heat transport away from the surface towards space.

Your analysis only works if water drove off ALL extra heat. Since you have said it doesn't, what happens when CO2 continues to build up? Wouldn't that "not quite all" part continue to build up, too? If you want to help us out in this thread, explain to Wirebender about energy absorption due to quatum changes in the electron cloud. He seems to think it's all about physical phase change!

I am going to keep showing you new ideas (to you anyways) about CO2, water and the atmosphere until you figure out that your understanding is too simplistic to cover even the basics.

1. Greenhouses and the planetary ‘greenhouse’ effect

I think we have all heard enough about this subject but I’ve got to deal with it first before I go on to explain how misleading I believe the concept to have been ever since it was first used in connection with planetary climates.

It’s quite clear that overall planetary temperatures are a fine balance between solar energy coming in and that same energy being radiated away into space. Planets with atmospheres stabilise their surface temperatures at a level dependent upon the density of the atmosphere leaving the main variation in planetary temperature dependent on variations in the energy coming in from the local star. I have seen a suggestion that it is density of an atmosphere that matters, not composition, so CO2 may be an irrelevance unless it affects overall density but being such a small proportion of our atmosphere it could not do so. The density proposition certainly fits the observed surface temperature differences between Venus, Earth and Mars.

The question currently concerning us all is whether additional CO2 being added by man to the Earth’s atmosphere is sufficient to destabilise the system and introduce a dangerous level of extra warming.

I’ve made comments on the issues of scale and causation in relation to Earth’s CO2 levels in previous articles but in this article I will consider entirely different and somewhat novel issues.

A planet’s atmosphere is entirely different from a greenhouse. The latter accumulates heat inside by physically preventing escape of hot air thereby concentrating it in a confined space. The atmosphere is nothing like that because there is nothing to prevent hot air rising via convection from the ground to a substantial height.

The role of convection and the subsequent condensation out of water vapour into clouds and then rainfall is currently incapable of quantification as a means of slowing or offsetting any atmospheric greenhouse effect but it certainly does those things.

In general, the warmer the Earth’s atmosphere gets at the lower levels the more vigorous and widespread convection will become because the temperature differential between the surface and space increases thereby invigorating the global convective process. This is why it is often said that a warmer Earth may have more violent storms. However, that is a two edged scenario. If convection increases in an attempt to regain the previous equilibrium then it will stabilise the temperature increase and reduce it back to what it was before. Convection is therefore a negative feedback process that could well be capable of preventing dangerous warming from proportionately miniscule extra anthropogenic CO2.

Extra convection would occur immediately in response to extra warmth (you can see from your local weather how quickly it starts every day as a result of changing solar power as each day progresses) and if the speed of response is quick enough and global it could well prevent any significant warming at all from any warming influences other than the main solar/oceanic driver.

The extra convection would not necessarily result in significantly more damaging storms because it would be spread across the globe and the increase in temperature between the surface and space would not need to become large before the process begins to take effect. We might even not be able to notice or measure it.

THE HOT WATER BOTTLE EFFECT by Stephen Wilde | Climate Realists

did you manage to take anything away from that?

 

[IanC]

no comments konradv?

care to explain why you think the small addition by CO2 isnt lost in the other processes of the atmospheric system?