muso wrote on Feb 26^th, 2011 at 9:07pm:


Ok, go for it...convince me that Co2 or GHG's cause warming...

The 'evil industry' thing was an entirely different concept....you can ignore it...

muso wrote on Feb 26^th, 2011 at 9:07pm:



It is possible, we may differ here, Muso?

I know that I will differ with gizmo, qikvtec and some others, but you get that!

The phrase "sustainable growth", aside from various implications regarding the word sustainable, still has growth as the underlying theme!

I would suggest that at this point in the history of the human species, continued Economic growth is not only not likely, but it is likely to quickly become counter-productive, in terms of the quality of life, for most of the human species.

The last 100 years or so, of this edition of Capitalism, Economic Growth has become a absolute requirement, along with an ever increasing Debt based monetary system.

We, as a species, have now reached the zenith of that Economic Growth system, as we edge over the 7 Billion Population and perhaps head for 8 Billion?

However, I have serious doubts that we will make it to 8 Billion, due to -
1) The declining Global fertility rate.
2) The death of some 2 Billion Baby Boomers over the next 20-30 years or so.
3) The imminent decline of the Global Energy system, primarily that of Fossil Fuels & primarily Crude Oil, which enables Transport, Agriculture, a great deal of the Medical areas & many, many other areas.    

They are 2 of the three primary Economic Drivers & Enablers of the last 150-200 years and together with the added Economic restrictions of Climate Change, I believe there is very little chance of Economic Growth over the next 30-40 years, "sustainable or not"!

As I have previously said, Technology/Innovation may again ride to our rescue, but given the forces arrayed against us and our tendency not to believe that which is right in front of us, I have serious doubts.

I also believe that Capitalism is a better option than the alternatives, such as Communism & Facism, to name but a few.

However, Capitalism Mark1 has now outlived its time and the future must see a more directed Capitalism, as the old days are coming to an end, as an unrestricted Demand, meets a Supply full of limitations!

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 26^th, 2011 at 9:45pm:


Let's start with an overview of the Earth's energy balance.

Most of the UV, visible and IR energy from the Sun passes right through the Earth's atmosphere and is absorbed by its surface (some is reflected and never absorbed). That energy heats the Earth surface to a average temperature of 18 degrees C. This temperature is sufficient for the Earth to emit energy only in the Long Wave IR part of the spectrum. It is this outgoing IR energy that is absorbed by the greenhouse gases. They warm the atmosphere and re-direct the IR energy, rather than allowing it to pass uninterrupted back to space.

Obviously there are many different factors that determine the average temperature of the Earth. These include the energy that the Earth receives from the sun, the amount of energy reflected back into space by clouds, ice and other bright substances, and conversely the amount of energy absorbed by darker surfaces, such as pine forests. That's known as the Albedo effect.

There are slow cyclic changes in the Earth's orbit and tilt that cause changes to the amount of energy being received from the sun. These effects are collectively referred to as the Milankovich cycles, after the Serbian engineer Milutin Milankovich who first described them. I could describe these effects in more detail, but Wikipedia beat me to it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles


There are also factors that determine changes in local temperatures on the globe over time. These include changes in ocean (eg the SOI) and air circulation, and the melting of glaciers etc.

Now getting back to the Greenhouse effect, we have the energy radiated from the Earth at around 10 microns. Coincidentally (and lucky for us), carbon dioxide and water vapour happen to absorb Infrared at around that wavelength.  

I keep harping back to this diagram, but it's the key to understanding the Greenhouse effect.



You need to look at the graphs one by one. The first one (red area)  illustrates how energy is received from the sun and some is re-radiated back into space. 70 - 75% of the mostly visible and a bit of near infrared is absorbed by the Earth.

On the same graph, the blue area shows the 'black body" radiation from the Earth (remember we talked about the Stefan Boltzmann equation?).  Between 15 and 30% of that energy is transmitted into space at any given time.

Now the next graph down shows the total absorption and scattering. Notice that there is a huge chunk missing around the LWIR peak at 10 microns? (This can actually be measured directly by the way).  What do you think causes that absorption? The key is the graphs underneath that show the different components.

Have you ever seen the actual spectrum caused by different sources? For example the sodium spectrum is not continuous. (Remember the old sodium vapour street lamps ? They gave off a yellow light) It's a series of lines, but as the intensity of the source is increased, the lines broaden with width. A similar thing happens with an absorption spectrum. We'll talk about that more later.

HC wrote on Feb 27^th, 2011 at 8:54am:


Instead of cutting and pasting from special interest lobbyists, why not try to follow the argument and refute anything that doesn't sound right? We are talking very basic science here.

Lavoisier Group

   * President: Peter Walsh, former Finance Minister
   * Vice President: Ian Webber, Director of WMC Resources
   * Secretary: Ray Evans, President of the HR Nicholls Society, ex-WMC [3]
   * Treasurer: Harold Clough AO, IPA board member and Director of Clough Group, a mining and resource service company.
   * Robert Foster
   * Bruce Kean, Chairman of Committee for Economic Development of Australia [4]
   * Peter Murray, coal industry consultant

Not a qualified scientist among them. Lavoisier would turn in his grave.

muso wrote on Feb 27^th, 2011 at 10:11am:


Seriously muso....that means what???...

The Board of Directors of most science companies/research groups don't include scientists either...
You know the old saying about scientific research...."It takes 10 people with their feet on the ground, to support 1 scientist with his head in the clouds"....

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 27^th, 2011 at 4:28pm:



PN, the directors of the IPCC aren't 'climate scientists' any more than anyother research group....


Automatically 'claiming' that any group that is sceptical of global warming is 'funded by big oil'....really just makes you guys seem pathetic......

Not every one who disagrees with one particular scientific discipline is being 'paid' by the opponents.....

But claiming that they are....really makes it seem you're worried....

Quote:


Yes I do know that....

It is in FACT my point.....

And it applies to warmists, just as much as it applies to sceptics....

AND, automatically 'claiming' that any one who disagrees with your beliefs is a 'shill' makes you seem worried...

Actually it WAS what you said...