Re: OT: The Great Global Warming Swindle.

In message <[email hidden]>

Paul Saunders said:

So by "if the greenhouse effect is real" you've just said that CO2 causes
temperature to rise. They said the opposite, that temperature causes CO2 to
rise.

I don't know who's right, I'm just repeating what they said.

Both are true, which is why you can get a runaway greenhouse effect, which
is what happened (naturally) on Venus.

--
Simon Challands

Simon Challands said:

In message <[email hidden]>

Paul Saunders said:

So by "if the greenhouse effect is real" you've just said that CO2
causes temperature to rise. They said the opposite, that temperature
causes CO2 to rise.

I don't know who's right, I'm just repeating what they said.

Both are true, which is why you can get a runaway greenhouse effect,
which is what happened (naturally) on Venus.

Yet they claimed that CO2 has been much higher in the past, but no runaway
greenhouse effect occurred then, so why should it occur now?

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk

The message <[email hidden]>
from "Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Both are true, which is why you can get a runaway greenhouse effect,
which is what happened (naturally) on Venus.

Venus is much closer to the Sun and hence gets much more heat.

Quoted message said:

Yet they claimed that CO2 has been much higher in the past, but no runaway
greenhouse effect occurred then, so why should it occur now?

How far in the past? The program has faded in my memory now as has the
stuff I looked up but I don't recall any evidence of recent (in
geological terms) significantly higher levels of CO2 and and only a few
brief intervals where it was higher than it is now.

It the temperature does take off due in part to the greenhouse effect it
will eventually reach a new equilibrium. That equilibrium doesn't need
to be much higher to make most of the world uninhabitable.

--
Roger Chapman
Nearest Marilyn still to be visited - Great Orme.
89 miles as the crow flies,
considerably more as the walker drives.

In message <[email hidden]>

Paul Saunders said:

Simon Challands said:

In message <[email hidden]>

Paul Saunders said:

So by "if the greenhouse effect is real" you've just said that CO2
causes temperature to rise. They said the opposite, that temperature
causes CO2 to rise.

I don't know who's right, I'm just repeating what they said.

Both are true, which is why you can get a runaway greenhouse effect,
which is what happened (naturally) on Venus.

Yet they claimed that CO2 has been much higher in the past, but no runaway
greenhouse effect occurred then, so why should it occur now?

I don't think anyone (over than the extremists) are claiming that there's
going to be a runaway greenhouse effect, I was merely illustrating the
point that both points are true.

I'm not sure what's so significant about higher levels in the past - does
it really matter what it was like in the past if we're still going to
engineer a relatively sudden change? That's arguably like saying that
lightning strikes occur naturally, therefore why not poke your fingers in an
electric socket.

--
Simon Challands

The message <[email hidden]>
from "Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

One person in the programme commented that since temperature is
leading CO2,
the effect of the CO2 is irrelevant. In other words, temperature rise
causes CO2 to rise, not the other way around.

Which only goes to show that the program was driven by its agenda,
not a search for the truth.

Quoted message said:

How does it show that? Because it contradicts what you believe?

No (and you don't actually know what I personally believe) and I gave
your the reason in the very next paragraph.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If the greenhouse effect is real the increased CO2 will
itself push the temperature up further which in turn would lead to
more CO2 being given up by the oceans.

Quoted message said:

So by "if the greenhouse effect is real" you've just said that CO2 causes
temperature to rise. They said the opposite, that temperature causes CO2 to
rise.

The two are not mutually exclusive. It appears that warming the sea
causes it to give off CO2. That is bound to lag behind temperature air
or surface temperature rise as the sea is a huge heatsink. That doesn't
stop the CO2 contributing to the warming along with the increased
radiation from the Sun.

Quoted message said:

I don't know who's right, I'm just repeating what they said.

I find it easy to pick holes in the deniers arguments but unfortunately
the other camps case is much more robust.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I was particularly unimpressed by their depiction of the greenhouse
> effect or rather its absence with the radiation from the sun just
> bouncing of the land leaving it extremely cold. Clearly whoever
> thought that up has never been out sunbathing.

Quoted message said:

I wasn't too impressed by their childish cartoons either, and the
word "bounce" was badly chosen, but in their explanation of the
sun's influence on the world's temperature (by reducing cloud cover
when the sun is more active), it was shown that the earth warms up
when there are less clouds.

Wales been particularly sunny these last few years?

Quoted message said:

Not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying that it has or hasn't?

Just seeing if you have any evidence for the reduced cloud cover the
lack of cosmic rays has led to.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> They also failed to
> give any indication how the scientist in question managed to come up
> with an accurate record of cosmic ray activity going back millennia.

Quoted message said:

They mainly examined the correlation between temperature and solar
activity over the past 400 years, since astronomers had been
collecting data on sunspots. Apparently it was believed that
sunspots affected temperature hundreds of years ago, so this is not
a new idea.

That doesn't answer how they arrived at the supposedly amazing
correlation between cosmic ray activity and temperature over a very
much longer period.

Quoted message said:

As for the cosmic ray record going back 6000 years, I looked that up.
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V6/N39/EDIT.jsp

That doesn't answer the question either.

Quoted message said:

Sorry. I did find another article which explained it but I can't remember
where now. There's plenty of stuff on the net if you Google for it, for
example this one;
http://biocab.org/Cosmic_Rays_Climate_Change.html

"This year (2006), the Tropospheric Temperature goes back to a cooling
similiar to 1960. The year 2006 has been one of the coldest years since
1997.

Our Global Warming has lasted less than that of the Medieval Age; in
addition, the positive fluctuations did not even reach the highest
levels that occurred during the Medieval Age."

So global warming has run its course and we are back into global cooling?

Now that at least is a prediction that can be proved or disproved over
the next decade or so but the basic facts used to support it appear to
be at odds with what is generally accepted elsewhere.

Anyone care to hazard a guess what they actually mean by ""back to a
cooling"? Is that perhaps Texan slang for temperature?

In the course of my earlier google I came across a site that claimed
that the greenhouse effect is what makes this planet habitable. Its
absence would result in a significant surface temperature drop. (Can't
remember now whether it was 13C, 33C or even some other figure). That
same site put the majority of the temperature difference down to water
vapour but claimed 25% of the difference was down to atmospheric CO2.
Since that greenhouse effect has been known about for 100 years or more
there has been ample time for any number of scientists to have disproved
it by now. Since they haven't the odds are that a significant change in
atmospheric CO2 (and 40% should be significant) would have a significant
effect on average surface temperature.

--
Roger Chapman
Nearest Marilyn still to be visited - Great Orme.
89 miles as the crow flies,
considerably more as the walker drives.

In message <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Sorry. I did find another article which explained it but I can't
remember where now. There's plenty of stuff on the net if you Google
for it, for example this one; http://biocab.org/Cosmic_Rays_Climate_Cha
nge.htm

That site writes "the CO2 level has been more or less steady from 2001",

If you look at

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/carbontracker/tseries.php?type=mr

you'll find it's ticking up as about 2ppm per annum.

This is more or less the same rate of increase as has obtained since
1960 (if anything the rate is increasing). See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png

The rest of the CO2 concentration curve on their graph doesn't seem to
be any more accurate. See

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm

for some data. Note that preindustrial levels are around 275-280 ppm,
not 210, and that there's no 1860-ish peak, nor following 70 year
decline.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

In message <[email hidden]>

Roger said:

The message <[email hidden]>
from "Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Both are true, which is why you can get a runaway greenhouse effect,
which is what happened (naturally) on Venus.

Venus is much closer to the Sun and hence gets much more heat.

But nowhere near enough to explain its current temperature; it's not
really "much more" heat, and it's been speculated that at one point in the
very distant past it may have had oceans. The extra heat input from the Sun
is what was enough to make it go runaway naturally.

--
Simon Challands

The message <[email hidden]>
from Simon Challands <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Both are true, which is why you can get a runaway greenhouse effect,
> which is what happened (naturally) on Venus.

Venus is much closer to the Sun and hence gets much more heat.

Quoted message said:

But nowhere near enough to explain its current temperature; it's not
really "much more" heat, and it's been speculated that at one point in the
very distant past it may have had oceans. The extra heat input from the Sun
is what was enough to make it go runaway naturally.

How does about twice grab you? That is much more in my book.

The atmosphere on Venus is both much thicker than Earth's and largely
CO2. Supposedly an excellent example of the greenhouse effect in action.

--
Roger Chapman
Nearest Marilyn still to be visited - Great Orme.
89 miles as the crow flies,
considerably more as the walker drives.

In message <[email hidden]>, Roger
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

The message <[email hidden]>
from Simon Challands <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > Both are true, which is why you can get a runaway greenhouse effect,
> > which is what happened (naturally) on Venus.

Venus is much closer to the Sun and hence gets much more heat.

Quoted message said:

But nowhere near enough to explain its current temperature; it's not
really "much more" heat, and it's been speculated that at one point in the
very distant past it may have had oceans. The extra heat input from the Sun
is what was enough to make it go runaway naturally.

How does about twice grab you? That is much more in my book.

Take the different albedos into account, and you'll find that Venus
doesn't received all that much more heat from the Sun than does the
Earth.

Quoted message said:

The atmosphere on Venus is both much thicker than Earth's and largely
CO2. Supposedly an excellent example of the greenhouse effect in action.

--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

The message <[email hidden]>
from Stewart Robert Hinsley <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How does about twice grab you? That is much more in my book.

Quoted message said:

Take the different albedos into account, and you'll find that Venus
doesn't received all that much more heat from the Sun than does the
Earth.

I take your point but that is the end result. Move the Earth to the same
orbit as Venus and the Earth too will quickly get continuous cloud cover
but maybe not the dense largely CO2 atmosphere.

--
Roger Chapman
Nearest Marilyn still to be visited - Great Orme.
89 miles as the crow flies,
considerably more as the walker drives.

Roger said:

The message <[email hidden]>
from Stewart Robert Hinsley <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How does about twice grab you? That is much more in my book.

Take the different albedos into account, and you'll find that Venus
doesn't received all that much more heat from the Sun than does the
Earth.

I take your point but that is the end result. Move the Earth to the same
orbit as Venus and the Earth too will quickly get continuous cloud cover
but maybe not the dense largely CO2 atmosphere.

Add a couple of chelsea tractors - that should do the trick.

The Earth probably had a pretty Venus-like atmosphere in its youth.
It would probably take the extinction of all carbon-oxygen life-forms
to turn it back.

--
"Has it ever rained cats and dogs?"

In message <[email hidden]>

Stewart Robert Hinsley said:

In message <[email hidden]>, Roger
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

The message <[email hidden]>
from Simon Challands <[email hidden]> contains these word

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But nowhere near enough to explain its current temperature; it's not
really "much more" heat, and it's been speculated that at one point in the
very distant past it may have had oceans. The extra heat input from the Sun
is what was enough to make it go runaway naturally.

How does about twice grab you? That is much more in my book.

Take the different albedos into account, and you'll find that Venus
doesn't received all that much more heat from the Sun than does the
Earth.

That's in it's current state, once the runaway greenhouse effect got it
there. Before that happened and a thick CO2-heavy atmosphere built up most
of that radiation would've reached the surface, helping to tip the whole
system into the runaway greenhouse effect (I suppose it could've been
some geological event like a volcanic eruption that was enough to tip it
to begin with).

--
Simon Challands

In message <[email hidden]>

Roger said:

The message <[email hidden]>
from Stewart Robert Hinsley <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How does about twice grab you? That is much more in my book.

Quoted message said:

Take the different albedos into account, and you'll find that Venus
doesn't received all that much more heat from the Sun than does the
Earth.

I take your point but that is the end result. Move the Earth to the same
orbit as Venus and the Earth too will quickly get continuous cloud cover
but maybe not the dense largely CO2 atmosphere.

No reason why it shouldn't end up like that if it was the same distance
from the sun.

--
Simon Challands

The message <[email hidden]>
from Simon Challands <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I take your point but that is the end result. Move the Earth to the same
orbit as Venus and the Earth too will quickly get continuous cloud cover
but maybe not the dense largely CO2 atmosphere.

Quoted message said:

No reason why it shouldn't end up like that if it was the same distance
from the sun.

May be if it had started out there but ISTM that too much of our carbon
is now safely locked up as calcium carbonate for us to end up with that
atmosphere.

--
Roger Chapman
Nearest Marilyn still to be visited - Great Orme.
89 miles as the crow flies,
considerably more as the walker drives.

Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from the
wonderful person Roger <[email hidden]> said

Quoted message said:

The message <[email hidden]>
from Simon Challands <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I take your point but that is the end result. Move the Earth to the same
orbit as Venus and the Earth too will quickly get continuous cloud cover
but maybe not the dense largely CO2 atmosphere.

Quoted message said:

No reason why it shouldn't end up like that if it was the same distance
from the sun.

May be if it had started out there but ISTM that too much of our carbon
is now safely locked up as calcium carbonate for us to end up with that
atmosphere.

That's where the 'runaway' comes in - if you get the temperature high
enough the Calcium Carbonate releases the CO2 again (see 'quicklime,
manufacture of'😉.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
8,013 Km walked. 1,453Km PROWs surveyed. 26.4% complete.

The message <[email hidden]>
from GSV Three Minds in a Can <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I take your point but that is the end result. Move the Earth to
> the same
> orbit as Venus and the Earth too will quickly get continuous
> cloud cover
> but maybe not the dense largely CO2 atmosphere.

Quoted message said:

No reason why it shouldn't end up like that if it was the same distance
from the sun.

May be if it had started out there but ISTM that too much of our carbon
is now safely locked up as calcium carbonate for us to end up with that
atmosphere.

Quoted message said:

That's where the 'runaway' comes in - if you get the temperature high
enough the Calcium Carbonate releases the CO2 again (see 'quicklime,
manufacture of'😉.

Surely the runaway aspect is as a result of positive feedback as
increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases provide the conditions for
increased release of those gases and while decomposition of calcium
carbonate might continue that trend would it ever get hot enough to
initiate the process outside of a volcano?

AFAICT quicklime production needs a temperature of 1000C while the
surface temperature on Venus will not exceed 500C so Earth's calcium
carbonate seems relatively safe.

--
Roger Chapman
Nearest Marilyn still to be visited - Great Orme.
89 miles as the crow flies,
considerably more as the walker drives.

Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from the
wonderful person Roger <[email hidden]> said

Quoted message said:

The message <[email hidden]>
from GSV Three Minds in a Can <[email hidden]> contains these words:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

AFAICT quicklime production needs a temperature of 1000C while the
surface temperature on Venus will not exceed 500C so Earth's calcium
carbonate seems relatively safe.

Actually I think quicklime production runs a bit cooler than that
(800-850c maybe?), and presumably the reaction will chug along
(unacceptably slowly for human purposes) even cooler, but maybe not down
to 500c.

Venus presumably has/had volcanic activity which released the CO2 in the
first place, but the mechanisms which, on Earth, soak it up and recycle
it back into carbonate rocks failed to work - one of those mechanisms is
of course life, particularly in the oceans.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
8,013 Km walked. 1,453Km PROWs surveyed. 26.4% complete.

In message <[email hidden]>, Roger
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

The message <[email hidden]>
from Simon Challands <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I take your point but that is the end result. Move the Earth to the same
orbit as Venus and the Earth too will quickly get continuous cloud cover
but maybe not the dense largely CO2 atmosphere.

Quoted message said:

No reason why it shouldn't end up like that if it was the same distance
from the sun.

May be if it had started out there but ISTM that too much of our carbon
is now safely locked up as calcium carbonate for us to end up with that
atmosphere.

Over geological time the carbon dioxide in carbonate sediments is
subducted and released to the atmosphere by volcanoes.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley