wrote in message
ink.net...
:
: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
: oups.com...
: From:
: Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:44:07 GMT
:
: Right, and the New Yourk Times is your idea of intellectually honest, and
: Teddy Kennedy is qualified to ask somebody about the morality.
:
: And the best nob can do is a strawman.
:
: Set, game, match.
:
: I"m tired.
:
: The point that is left is that there are many credible scinetists and
: University researchers that don't agree about GW being man made.
: It may very likely be nothing more than a normal weather pattern.
...............
You don't seem to get what i told you about the net influx of heat, that is
causing the _heating up_ ; weather is responsive, the solar energy is
the driving force.
suppose for a moment the earth was a solid object, without atmosphere,
then an increase in temperature of 6 degrees centigrade would increase
the radiated heat by about 10 %, so obviously any imbalance will settle
at a new equilibrium - that's just as with any object you heat up at home.
the real situation is somewhat more complicated;-)
on the day-side, the albedo, reflectivity index, determines how much of
the incoming solar energy is reflected, on the night-side, heat is radiated
according to surface temperature.. but wait, there's the atmosphere !
this reduces the heat radiated back into space and together with earth's
rotation and oceans creates the weather patterns.
the different gases that make up the atmosphere are part of a chemical
balance with the gases chemically bound in soil, physically dissolved
in the oceans, etc. higher temperatures shift these equations to the
gaseous state, leading to increased atmospheric pressure and more
reduction in radiated heat - positive feedback !
but wait .. luckily, this planet is filled with living matter, altering the
picture once more. eg. vegetation takes on a different colour when
temperatures rise, changing the reflectivity. man made activity, such as
agriculture, urbanisation, emission of various gases change the balance.
bacteria, insects, other lifeforms partake in several balances.
ocean currents, wind, clouds redistribute heat.
any reasonable model thus needs more than a few dozen parameters
to 'get it right'
: Considering how little we acutally contribute as a percentage of the total
: CO2, it's possible that we are having no effect at all.
:
Massive amounts of methane are leaking away at pump stations,
something like 5 % of total NG distributed, CH4 is a 'greenhouse gas'
Then again, a billion tons a year are produced by bacterial fermentation
in mud in rivers, oceans, estuaries, swamps.
Some 50 times the amount of atmospheric CO2 is dissolved in the
oceans. Massive amounts of nitrogen are bound as nitrates in the sea.
Etc., etc., it's exeedingly complex, no single discipline can claim
it's vision to give the real resultant picture of all these systems.
What matters not so much is the absolute level of temperature or CO2
content in the atmosphere, as these have been all over the map in the past,
it is the _unprecedented_ rate of change that may spell trouble,
as there may not be sufficient feedback regulation , that is, the
system that took millions of years to evolve is nudged outside it's
correctable range (in the same sense that a buffer solution cannot cope
with _any_ level of disturbance, or say an amplifier that is clipping
cannot be corrected by feedback
This rate of change *does* seem to be indicating man made influences!
Rudy
: Another point to consider is that the history of fuel is for it to get more
: efficient and cleaner. Those using the the worst fuel are the poorest.
: Instead of punishing the U.S. and those other countries that are Industrial
: giants, why not get the poorer countries to a place where they cna use the
: same type of fuels and get the same sort of efficiency as we do? Bringing
: the poorer countries, using the dirtiest fuels up to out level raises
: everybody and reduces the CO2 without punishment to anybody.
: