Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 122

Thread: USA+China makes biggest jump ever in polluting global warming gases

  1. #101
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frost View Post
    Why do you think that reducing CO2 emission is good?

    So far human science knows nothing about climate. Are we able to forecast the weather for a month? No. We can try, with 50% correctness, so the result is the same as tossing a coin. While talking about CO2, they are forecasting for decades and centuries? It's laughable. Is it a science at all?
    Can our science explain the causes of the Little Ice Age that happened almost before our eyes, just a few centuries ago? No.
    Actually CO2 being a global green house is a FACT. A hard scientific _FACT_. There is mechanics to how gasses in the atmosphere functions. These mechanics can be examined, measured, and tested. Which they are. How CO2 contributes to the Earth's temperature is known. How much it actually does is debatable, but it's a cold hard fact that it does. The problem is that these facts are never talked about on the news media. It's not mentioned in the articles, essays, and books that are designed to appeal to the mass consumer market. These facts are carefully kept out of politics and most 'Green' type people, as well as the majority of the public, are entirely ignorant to how CO2 and other gasses contribute to global warming.

    The reason this is so is because if you bring up how CO2 functions in a political debate it would destroy people's arguments that man-made global warming is a threat. So these 'inconvenient truths' are kept carefully hidden from most folks.

    I can explain it to you. It is, in fact, very simple.


    Here is how it works:

    CO2 is normally considered a transparent, colorless gas. It's transparent to us and having a lot of it in the atmosphere is not going to impact our ability to see or whatever. To us it is transparent. Except... it's not really transparent. Not at all frequencies of light.

    As you know when something is 'black' to us it absorbs all available light frequencies. When something is 'red' to us it absorbs all the frequencies except the red ones. When something is 'white' it reflect backs all frequencies. etc etc. So as you know on a sunny day a white surface is generally going to be cooler then a black surface. Any child can attest to this through experience.

    So that is something that is easy to understand.



    =========================================


    The next part is harder to understand:

    Things that are 'hotter' emit light that is higher frequency then cooler objects. People use this to describe the 'whiteness' of light, read through the following article:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature

    What they do not explain in that wikipedia color is how people came up with the term '5000 K' whiteness or whatever. The 'color temperature' is based on what color black iron is when heated up to that temperature. So when you heat cast iron up to 5000 degrees then it is more orange-ish. When you heat it up to 9000 K degrees then it becomes much more blue-ish white.

    We can see this in the colors of the stars. Our sun is a yellow sun. The reason this is is because it's in the middle-hotness. Blue stars burn much hotter then our sun does. Red stars burn much cooler..
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_giant


    If you understand how radiation is created then it's easy to understand. When something is hotter it is because the atoms in it is moving much faster. The hotter the objects the faster the atoms move. So those atoms moving and vibrating impact what sort of radiation they emit.

    Ok?

    So just remember this:
    Hotter objects emit higher frequencies.
    Cooler objects emit lower frequencies.


    ==================================================



    So what does this have to do with CO2 and global warming!?!?


    Remember this:

    CO2 is colorless and transparent EXCEPT for some infrared frequencies.

    It is _BLACK_ when it comes to certain very specific infrared colors.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared

    Infrared is a cool color. It is light generated by relatively cool objects. We don't see it, but we are emitting infrared light right now. This is why infrared cameras can see in the dark. They can see the light being emitted by cool objects. If we heat things up to higher tempuratures then that makes hotter light. That is why we can see the light from light bulbs...


    OK.............


    putting it all together:


    Our Sun emits 'HOT' light. That light travels through the atmosphere and heats the surface of the planet. The CO2 is mostly transparent to the light energy emitted from the sun.

    The surface of the planet heats up and reflects back infrared light. This infrared light is a 'cooler' light, but it still has lots of energy. This energy is part of what makes the hot surface feel hot on a sunny day without touching it. However from the infrared light reflected back from the earth... certain very specific frequencies it absorbs that infrared. It is not transparent to those specific frequencies. So CO2 absorbs the specific infrared frequencies and converts that to heat.

    I say 'specific' infrared frequencies, because it does not absorb most of it. It cannot. It can only absorb certain specific frequencies.. which is why things like infrared cameras still work.

    THAT is how CO2 makes the earth warmer.
    CO2 makes the earth warmer because it absorbs certain infrared frequencies being reflected back into space by the surface of the planet.

    That is how CO2 works, that is why they call CO2 a 'greenhouse' gas.


    Makes sense?


    ================================================== ==============



    Ok.....

    Here is the fun part:


    So it would _seem_ that the more CO2 you have the more infrared light it absorbs and the hotter it will make the atmosphere. This is very true.

    The more CO2 you have the hotter it is going to get. _PERIOD_. There is no debating this. It's a fact.


    BUT WHAT THE GREENIES IGNORE IS THIS:

    But why is it not dangerous? Why is having more CO2 not a threat to the earth and humanity? If having more CO2 makes things hotter, then why does having more and more CO2 cause a huge amount of problems?

    THEY IGNORE THE AMOUNT CO2 CONTRIBUTES.


    We already have enough CO2 that pretty much all of the infrared energy that CO2 can convert to heat is already converted to heat. At about ten feet off the ground 99% of the infrared energy is already absorbed by CO2 and converted to heat.

    It does not matter how much more CO2 we have because it's not going to be able to squeeze any more energy from infrared radiation. The 'greenhouse effect', the insulating nature of CO2 is completely used up at that point. Now the amount of energy that CO2 absorbs is actually very significant. It's very important. If we lost a lot of CO2 then we would be a lot cooler. But the effect of having more CO2 then we have now is not that great.

    The amount heat that CO2 contributes is on a logarithmic scale. It has diminishing returns. Going from zero CO2 to a tiny amount of CO2 has a HUGE impact. But going from lots and lots of CO2 to 4% more CO2 has almost no impact at all.


    Look at it like mixing white and black paint:


    If you have just a tiny bit of black in a white then that makes a very light gray. Almost all the light is still being reflected back.
    The more black you add to the darker the color gets. So more and more light is being absorbed.

    However eventually you get to the point were you have lots of black and just a tiny bit of white. You then just have a 'black' color. Adding more and more black color is not going to make it any darker in any noticeable way. It just won't get any darker.

    This is the way it is with CO2. Those infrared frequencies that get converted to heat are almost all converted. Double or tripling the amount of CO2 is not going to make much of a difference. It is already doing all the work it can ever possibly do.

    So while:

    A) Man's activity creates lots of CO2 == FACT
    B) Having more CO2 in the atmosphere makes things hotter == FACT

    So:
    A + B) Man's activity makes things hotter == FACT

    BUT:

    Man's activity is not contributing _that_much_. We are talking about fractions of a degree. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature changes we see CAN NOT BE EXPLAINED BY CO2!!!!

    Man's creation of CO2 can NOT be the cause of global warming!

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by drag View Post
    Actually CO2 being a global green house is a FACT. A hard scientific _FACT_. There is mechanics to how gasses in the atmosphere functions. These mechanics can be examined, measured, and tested. Which they are. How CO2 contributes to the Earth's temperature is known. How much it actually does is debatable, but it's a cold hard fact that it does. The problem is that these facts are never talked about on the news media. It's not mentioned in the articles, essays, and books that are designed to appeal to the mass consumer market. These facts are carefully kept out of politics and most 'Green' type people, as well as the majority of the public, are entirely ignorant to how CO2 and other gasses contribute to global warming.

    The reason this is so is because if you bring up how CO2 functions in a political debate it would destroy people's arguments that man-made global warming is a threat. So these 'inconvenient truths' are kept carefully hidden from most folks.

    I can explain it to you. It is, in fact, very simple.


    Here is how it works:

    CO2 is normally considered a transparent, colorless gas. It's transparent to us and having a lot of it in the atmosphere is not going to impact our ability to see or whatever. To us it is transparent. Except... it's not really transparent. Not at all frequencies of light.

    As you know when something is 'black' to us it absorbs all available light frequencies. When something is 'red' to us it absorbs all the frequencies except the red ones. When something is 'white' it reflect backs all frequencies. etc etc. So as you know on a sunny day a white surface is generally going to be cooler then a black surface. Any child can attest to this through experience.

    So that is something that is easy to understand.



    =========================================


    The next part is harder to understand:

    Things that are 'hotter' emit light that is higher frequency then cooler objects. People use this to describe the 'whiteness' of light, read through the following article:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature

    What they do not explain in that wikipedia color is how people came up with the term '5000 K' whiteness or whatever. The 'color temperature' is based on what color black iron is when heated up to that temperature. So when you heat cast iron up to 5000 degrees then it is more orange-ish. When you heat it up to 9000 K degrees then it becomes much more blue-ish white.

    We can see this in the colors of the stars. Our sun is a yellow sun. The reason this is is because it's in the middle-hotness. Blue stars burn much hotter then our sun does. Red stars burn much cooler..
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_giant


    If you understand how radiation is created then it's easy to understand. When something is hotter it is because the atoms in it is moving much faster. The hotter the objects the faster the atoms move. So those atoms moving and vibrating impact what sort of radiation they emit.

    Ok?

    So just remember this:
    Hotter objects emit higher frequencies.
    Cooler objects emit lower frequencies.


    ==================================================



    So what does this have to do with CO2 and global warming!?!?


    Remember this:

    CO2 is colorless and transparent EXCEPT for some infrared frequencies.

    It is _BLACK_ when it comes to certain very specific infrared colors.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared

    Infrared is a cool color. It is light generated by relatively cool objects. We don't see it, but we are emitting infrared light right now. This is why infrared cameras can see in the dark. They can see the light being emitted by cool objects. If we heat things up to higher tempuratures then that makes hotter light. That is why we can see the light from light bulbs...


    OK.............


    putting it all together:


    Our Sun emits 'HOT' light. That light travels through the atmosphere and heats the surface of the planet. The CO2 is mostly transparent to the light energy emitted from the sun.

    The surface of the planet heats up and reflects back infrared light. This infrared light is a 'cooler' light, but it still has lots of energy. This energy is part of what makes the hot surface feel hot on a sunny day without touching it. However from the infrared light reflected back from the earth... certain very specific frequencies it absorbs that infrared. It is not transparent to those specific frequencies. So CO2 absorbs the specific infrared frequencies and converts that to heat.

    I say 'specific' infrared frequencies, because it does not absorb most of it. It cannot. It can only absorb certain specific frequencies.. which is why things like infrared cameras still work.

    THAT is how CO2 makes the earth warmer.
    CO2 makes the earth warmer because it absorbs certain infrared frequencies being reflected back into space by the surface of the planet.

    That is how CO2 works, that is why they call CO2 a 'greenhouse' gas.


    Makes sense?


    ================================================== ==============



    Ok.....

    Here is the fun part:


    So it would _seem_ that the more CO2 you have the more infrared light it absorbs and the hotter it will make the atmosphere. This is very true.

    The more CO2 you have the hotter it is going to get. _PERIOD_. There is no debating this. It's a fact.


    BUT WHAT THE GREENIES IGNORE IS THIS:

    But why is it not dangerous? Why is having more CO2 not a threat to the earth and humanity? If having more CO2 makes things hotter, then why does having more and more CO2 cause a huge amount of problems?

    THEY IGNORE THE AMOUNT CO2 CONTRIBUTES.


    We already have enough CO2 that pretty much all of the infrared energy that CO2 can convert to heat is already converted to heat. At about ten feet off the ground 99% of the infrared energy is already absorbed by CO2 and converted to heat.

    It does not matter how much more CO2 we have because it's not going to be able to squeeze any more energy from infrared radiation. The 'greenhouse effect', the insulating nature of CO2 is completely used up at that point. Now the amount of energy that CO2 absorbs is actually very significant. It's very important. If we lost a lot of CO2 then we would be a lot cooler. But the effect of having more CO2 then we have now is not that great.

    The amount heat that CO2 contributes is on a logarithmic scale. It has diminishing returns. Going from zero CO2 to a tiny amount of CO2 has a HUGE impact. But going from lots and lots of CO2 to 4% more CO2 has almost no impact at all.


    Look at it like mixing white and black paint:


    If you have just a tiny bit of black in a white then that makes a very light gray. Almost all the light is still being reflected back.
    The more black you add to the darker the color gets. So more and more light is being absorbed.

    However eventually you get to the point were you have lots of black and just a tiny bit of white. You then just have a 'black' color. Adding more and more black color is not going to make it any darker in any noticeable way. It just won't get any darker.

    This is the way it is with CO2. Those infrared frequencies that get converted to heat are almost all converted. Double or tripling the amount of CO2 is not going to make much of a difference. It is already doing all the work it can ever possibly do.

    So while:

    A) Man's activity creates lots of CO2 == FACT
    B) Having more CO2 in the atmosphere makes things hotter == FACT

    So:
    A + B) Man's activity makes things hotter == FACT

    BUT:

    Man's activity is not contributing _that_much_. We are talking about fractions of a degree. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature changes we see CAN NOT BE EXPLAINED BY CO2!!!!

    Man's creation of CO2 can NOT be the cause of global warming!
    you are right. because of this i wrote in this forum multiple times CO2 is not "evil"

    but the fossil fuel is a limited resources if we burn it down we do not have it in the future.

    we really should save fossil fuels.

    on the CO2 tropic most people do not count the positive effects of the CO2 for example plants grow faster if you do have more CO2 in the air.

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by drag View Post
    Actually CO2 being a global green house is a FACT. A hard scientific _FACT_.
    The only fact is that CO2 absorbs infrared waves. Everything about CO2 effect on "global warming" etc is not proved. There are some theories, but nothing more. The problem is that earth climate depends on many other factors, it's a complex system, so our knowledge about CO2 is nothing when we want to analyze the behaviour of complete climate system.
    There is mechanics to how gasses in the atmosphere functions. These mechanics can be examined, measured, and tested. Which they are. How CO2 contributes to the Earth's temperature is known.
    It's not known.
    How much it actually does is debatable, but it's a cold hard fact that it does.
    It does if we are considering the effect of CO2 isolated. We don't know the effect of CO2 on earth climate.
    The problem is that these facts are never talked about on the news media. It's not mentioned in the articles, essays, and books that are designed to appeal to the mass consumer market. These facts are carefully kept out of politics and most 'Green' type people, as well as the majority of the public, are entirely ignorant to how CO2 and other gasses contribute to global warming.

    The reason this is so is because if you bring up how CO2 functions in a political debate it would destroy people's arguments that man-made global warming is a threat. So these 'inconvenient truths' are kept carefully hidden from most folks.
    I can explain it to you. It is, in fact, very simple.
    I don't need it. Of course I'm not an expert on this, but I hope I know it good enough, so it's not clear to me why do you think I don't understand it.
    Here is how it works:

    Makes sense?

    Ok.....

    Here is the fun part:


    So it would _seem_ that the more CO2 you have the more infrared light it absorbs and the hotter it will make the atmosphere. This is very true.

    The more CO2 you have the hotter it is going to get. _PERIOD_. There is no debating this. It's a fact.


    BUT WHAT THE GREENIES IGNORE IS THIS:

    But why is it not dangerous? Why is having more CO2 not a threat to the earth and humanity? If having more CO2 makes things hotter, then why does having more and more CO2 cause a huge amount of problems?

    THEY IGNORE THE AMOUNT CO2 CONTRIBUTES.


    We already have enough CO2 that pretty much all of the infrared energy that CO2 can convert to heat is already converted to heat. At about ten feet off the ground 99% of the infrared energy is already absorbed by CO2 and converted to heat.

    It does not matter how much more CO2 we have because it's not going to be able to squeeze any more energy from infrared radiation. The 'greenhouse effect', the insulating nature of CO2 is completely used up at that point. Now the amount of energy that CO2 absorbs is actually very significant. It's very important. If we lost a lot of CO2 then we would be a lot cooler. But the effect of having more CO2 then we have now is not that great.

    The amount heat that CO2 contributes is on a logarithmic scale. It has diminishing returns. Going from zero CO2 to a tiny amount of CO2 has a HUGE impact. But going from lots and lots of CO2 to 4% more CO2 has almost no impact at all.


    Look at it like mixing white and black paint:


    If you have just a tiny bit of black in a white then that makes a very light gray. Almost all the light is still being reflected back.
    The more black you add to the darker the color gets. So more and more light is being absorbed.

    However eventually you get to the point were you have lots of black and just a tiny bit of white. You then just have a 'black' color. Adding more and more black color is not going to make it any darker in any noticeable way. It just won't get any darker.

    This is the way it is with CO2. Those infrared frequencies that get converted to heat are almost all converted. Double or tripling the amount of CO2 is not going to make much of a difference. It is already doing all the work it can ever possibly do.

    So while:

    A) Man's activity creates lots of CO2 == FACT
    B) Having more CO2 in the atmosphere makes things hotter == FACT
    I said it before - it's not the fact. CO2 absorbs IR, but it's effect on climate was never proven.

    So:
    A + B) Man's activity makes things hotter == FACT
    No.

    BUT:

    Man's activity is not contributing _that_much_. We are talking about fractions of a degree. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature changes we see CAN NOT BE EXPLAINED BY CO2!!!!

    Man's creation of CO2 can NOT be the cause of global warming!
    Your explanation seems correct anyway, but you are using wrong arguments to prove the same fact that I was talking about. That is, CO2 effect is not known.

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by allquixotic View Post
    ...
    So while it is theoretically possible for us to do that, right now, if the universe is the country of Russia, we have transportation technology approximately equivalent to the speed of a slug. Getting out of the wilderness and to a city at that speed would take an unacceptably long time, because our 9V battery can only power the light bulb for a few hours. Therein lies the problem.
    I think we are both form Russia Probably your comparison with the slug was not good enough. The first translation of the "slug" that google gives me is "пуля" - bullet. And probably it's not what you meant...

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    you are right. because of this i wrote in this forum multiple times CO2 is not "evil"
    but the fossil fuel is a limited resources if we burn it down we do not have it in the future.
    we really should save fossil fuels.
    on the CO2 tropic most people do not count the positive effects of the CO2 for example plants grow faster if you do have more CO2 in the air.
    Why do we need the fossil fuel in the future? Why do we need to care about it. AFAICS we have it enough for the 50 years. And in 50 years obviously we'll have some other source of energy. E.g. nuclear. I know that you don't like nuclear energy, but if we'll use it right, it will be far more clean energy than ever.
    Though currently I like the Germany bying natural gas etc. Probably that's because I live in the country that is selling it.

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by drag View Post
    Actually CO2 being a global green house is a FACT.
    A hard scientific _FACT_.
    The fact is that CO2 absorbs IR energy. And nothing more. Our climate is a complex system and CO2 is a very very very little part of it.
    There is mechanics to how gasses in the atmosphere functions. These mechanics can be examined, measured, and tested. Which they are. How CO2 contributes to the Earth's temperature is known.
    It's not known. We know how it behaves isolated. And nothing more. We don't know how it behaves in such a complex system as an earth's ecosphere.
    How much it actually does is debatable, but it's a cold hard fact that it does. The problem is that these facts are never talked about on the news media. It's not mentioned in the articles, essays, and books that are designed to appeal to the mass consumer market. These facts are carefully kept out of politics and most 'Green' type people, as well as the majority of the public, are entirely ignorant to how CO2 and other gasses contribute to global warming.

    The reason this is so is because if you bring up how CO2 functions in a political debate it would destroy people's arguments that man-made global warming is a threat. So these 'inconvenient truths' are kept carefully hidden from most folks.

    I can explain it to you. It is, in fact, very simple.
    Do you think I don't know everything you are going to explain? Are you a prophet that gives us some unknown knowledge?
    Ok?
    Ok
    Makes sense?
    ...
    A) Man's activity creates lots of CO2 == FACT
    It's right, at least we are breathing...
    B) Having more CO2 in the atmosphere makes things hotter == FACT
    No

    So:
    A + B) Man's activity makes things hotter == FACT
    No

    BUT:

    Man's activity is not contributing _that_much_. We are talking about fractions of a degree. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature changes we see CAN NOT BE EXPLAINED BY CO2!!!!

    Man's creation of CO2 can NOT be the cause of global warming!
    The global warming is not a problem at all. You are explaining the solution of the problems that we don't hit.

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frost View Post
    Why do we need the fossil fuel in the future? Why do we need to care about it. AFAICS we have it enough for the 50 years. And in 50 years obviously we'll have some other source of energy. E.g. nuclear. I know that you don't like nuclear energy, but if we'll use it right, it will be far more clean energy than ever.
    Though currently I like the Germany bying natural gas etc. Probably that's because I live in the country that is selling it.
    the answer for your question is simpe: its because the organic chemical industry is more important than the electric energy sector and the house heating sector.

    if you burn it its lost but you need it for your chemical industry.
    Quote Originally Posted by frost View Post
    Though currently I like the Germany bying natural gas etc. Probably that's because I live in the country that is selling it.
    its one of the most clean and secure energy sources the electric efficiency of 60% is just the best of all fossil fuels.
    it does have less CO2 output than coal and no radiation like coal and no toxic like coal.

    natural gas is just great
    Last edited by Qaridarium; 11-27-2011 at 02:49 AM.

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    natural gas is just great
    That's exactly what I'm saying - just buy our fossil fuel and leave the problems for us.
    You don't have to bother about it
    When it will be finished, we'll find something else to sell you

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    34

    Default

    Man made Global Warming is the boogeyman needed by the international bankers in order to bring about their worldwide cashless carbon trading system once they've got people riled-up enough about the current mess.

    It is quite simply about control.

    Free energy has been available for years and no - I'm not talking about "perpetual motion machines"

    Here is just ONE of many ways of accessing clean energy for free (after the initial investment)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31HoQ4rGdBc

    This is all about control and a desire to reduce the population of the world so that the banksters can consolidate their assets.

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by philcostin View Post
    Man made Global Warming is the boogeyman needed by the international bankers in order to bring about their worldwide cashless carbon trading system once they've got people riled-up enough about the current mess.

    It is quite simply about control.

    Free energy has been available for years and no - I'm not talking about "perpetual motion machines"

    Here is just ONE of many ways of accessing clean energy for free (after the initial investment)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31HoQ4rGdBc

    This is all about control and a desire to reduce the population of the world so that the banksters can consolidate their assets.
    At least in my country this "free energy" thing was promoted with a mail spam. I don't know if it really works, but I won't be surprised if it was promoted the same way in other countries. So what do you expect? I'll be all for the stopping it in such case. It's really not right.

    That's what I found by quick search:
    http://green.autoblog.com/2008/08/04...-your-mileage/

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •