Post

Too Little

Volcanoes and the oceans pump out greater than 50% of all greenhouse gas emissions and mankind only 6%.

There is strong evidence that the increase in greenhouse gas emission is caused by sunspots warming the oceans over the last 40 years.

Happydad Happydad 46-50, M 7 Responses Jan 23, 2008

Your Response

Cancel

When the earth was in balance greenhouse gases were not a problem. However, man deforested the plant which absorbed most of these gases. Add to that the explosion of people on the planet and all their toys and the mitigation of the gases by earths natural means is sorely compromised. It's really basic math.

The water vapour vector of the infrared (IR) optical thickness of Earth's atmosphere is about 1.7, about 10 times as great as the CO2 IR optical thickness vector. As such, since water vapour comes from the ocean, one can argue that the ocean is responsible for at least 90 per cent of the greenhouse effect. However, as published by Svante Arrhenius in the 1890s, an increase in CO2 will increase the amount of water vapour in Earth's atmosphere, and a decrease in CO2 will decrease the amount of water vapour.

As such, the ocean is a greenhouse multiplier for man's CO2, and a very slow multiplier at that. Due to "thermal inertia" of the ocean, it takes about 8000 years for water vapour to reach an approximate equilibrium with CO2, explaining why what are theoretically double peaks in the Milankovic cycles in the last 400,000 years end up being single peaks instead. The danger in that thermal inertia is that we humans have the ability in the next 200 years to raise CO2 to a level that will cook our species into extinction 8000 years from now.

If we are wise, we will stop the Northern Hemisphere CO2 rise at 44 pascals (434 parts per million) for 40 years in order to safely see what we are getting ourselves into. That 44 pascal level happens in about the year 2028. Now in 2013, we have about 15 years to put in place on a large scale more sustainable energy sources that do not produce CO2. The increasing speed of sea level rise is a warning by Nature that we humans with our CO2 emissions are in a very short geological time frame capable of converting Earth into a planet that will no longer support us 8000 years in the future.

The earth's carbon, isn't it in a closed system and therefore couldn't it increase or decrease only so much, within limits I mean? <br />
<br />
This concept made me think that global warming wasn't a problem; then I considered the time involved: humans releasing carbon into the atmosphere more suddenly than ever before...carbon from volcanoes and other subterranean sources would change that system...so it's not really closed after all.<br />
<br />
I guess I'm not much of a climatologist...Hee hee.

Senior Meteorologist Dr. Wolfgang P. Thuene was a former analyst and forecaster for the German Weather Service in the field of synoptic meteorology and also worked for the German Environmental Protection Agency. Thuene currently works in the Ministry of Environment and Forests of Rheinland-Pfalz. In 2007, Thuene rejected the idea that mankind is driving global warming. “All temperature and weather observations indicate that the earth isn’t like a greenhouse and that there is in reality no ‘natural greenhouse effect’ which could warm up the earth by its own emitted energy and cause by re-emission a ‘global warming effect’. With or without atmosphere every body loses heat, gets inevitably colder. This natural fact, formulated by Sir Isaac Newton in his ‘cooling law’, led Sir James Dewar to the construction of the ‘Dewar flask’ to minimize heat losses from a vessel. But the most perfect thermos flask can’t avoid that the hot coffee really gets cold. The hypothesis of a natural and a man-made ‘greenhouse effect’, like eugenics, belongs to the category ‘scientific errors,” Thuene wrote on February 24, 2007. <br />
<br />
“The infrared thermography is a smoking gun proof that the IPCC-hypothesis cannot be right. The atmosphere does not act like the glass of a greenhouse which primarily hinders the convection! The atmosphere has an open radiation window between 8 and 14 microns and is therefore transparent to infrared heat from the earth’s surface. This window cannot be closed by the distinctive absorption lines of CO2 at 4.3 and 15 microns. Because the atmosphere is not directly heated by the Sun but indirectly by the surface the earth loses warmth also by conduction with the air and much more effectively by vertical convection of the air to a very great part by evaporation and transpiration. Nearly thirty percent of the solar energy is used for evaporation and distributed as latent energy through the atmosphere,” Thuene wrote. “Summarizing we can say: Earth’s surface gains heat from the Sun, is warmed up and loses heat by infrared radiation. While the input of heat by solar radiation is restricted to the daytime hours, the outgoing terrestrial radiation is a non<x>stop process during day and night and depends only on the body temperature and the emissivity. Therefore after sunset the earth continuous to radiate and therefore cools off. Because the air is in physical contact with the ground it also cools off, the vertical temperature profile changes, and we get a so called surface inversion which inhibits convection,” Thuene explained.

Happydad refers to an "open radiation window between 8 and 14 microns" that supposedly cannot be shut by additional CO2.

In fact, however, the radiation window analogy works best in terms of viewing the CO2 radiation window as a window that is dirty and somewhat fogged, explaining why the planet Venus with 8,890,000 pascals of median CO2 surface partial pressure has a surface temperature of about 462 Celsius, or 863 Fahrenheit.

In 1896, after taking wavelength-specific measurements, Svante Arrhenius proposed that the overall greenhouse power of CO2 was exponential. In modern and more accurate terms, the effective overall infrared "optical thickness" from CO2 in a planet's atmosphere is proportional to the 0.559 power of absolute atmospheric CO2 concentration, as demonstrated by the temperature readings of more than 400 Celsius from the Soviet Venera space probes of the 20th century. The coefficient of course depends on the units used for the amount of CO2. If the amount is expressed in terms of pascals of median surface partial pressure (8,890,000 pascals in the case of Venus), the coefficient is 0.0199, making the overall infrared optical thickness of the atmosphere of Venus a little over 152.5, enough to explain the very high surface temperature of Venus. To this day, the "dirty window" view of the effect of CO2 on the greenhouse metric of infrared "optical thickness" has been shown to be a highly accurate method for approximating the temperature of an Earth-like planet such as Earth or Mars or Venus. For more information on this method of temperature approximation, use "the numerical effect of greenhouse gasses" as a search string in this experienceproject site.

There is a big difference between the climatic change that happened in the past and what is being witnessed at the moment, however. Most important of those is time scale. At no time in the past has the climate been subjected to such a rapid, sustained "forcing" (ie factor causing a change).<br />
<br />
It is not human "power" that is creating the problem, it is the fact we are accidentally disrupting a key part of the climate cycle.<br />
<br />
The amount of time it will take for the effects of our current actions to wear off, even if we ceased it all immediately is probably closer to 500 years than 100 years. <br />
<br />
But nobody shows any time of stopping burning carbon based fuels any time soon.<br />
<br />
It is really a human issue though (as well as the inevitable extinctions that will occur). The potential for human suffering as a result of man made climate change is staggering.<br />
<br />
I am not here to debate people's right to believe what they will, however, only to talk about the evidence, seeing as evidence is being claimed.

What is this evidence that you are referring to?<br />
<br />
I'm pretty certain there is no *direct* evidence of such a mechanism, not even most climate change "sceptics" would claim that.<br />
<br />
I'd also be interested to know where you get the 50%/6% statistics from.

the climate changed a millions of years ago when the dinosaurs were alive, there were no humans back then to cause that