Home arrow Commentary arrow Editorial arrow Climate Sustainability Emergency
Feb 10 2008
Climate Sustainability Emergency | Print |  E-mail
Editorial
By Gideon Polya   

Translation

Negative CO2 Emissions needed now to Save PlanetImage

Scientist concerns about man-made (anthropogenic) climate change through greenhouse gas pollution led to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and  the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) setting up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1988.

The IPCC currently involves hundreds of scientists from around the world as authors, contributors and reviewers and issues regular, scientific consensus-based Assessment reports.  .

The first IPCC Assessment Report of 1990 led to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which was opened for signature in the Rio de Janeiro Summit in 1992 (in  force in 1994) that provides the overall global policy framework for addressing the climate change.

The IPCC Second Assessment Report of 1995 provided key assessments for the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 (the major polluters, Australia and the US under both Clinton and Bush, refused to sign but the new Rudd Labor Australian Government recently signed the  Kyoto Protocol as its first act in December 2007).

The Third Assessment Report of 2001 as well as Special and Methodology Reports provided further data for operations under the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol.

The Fourth Assessment Report of 2007 and its Summary Report (see a Summary of the Summary ) made even more dire predictions about global warming,  sea level rises and impact on human populations than its predecessors but listed these under various “scenarios”.

Unfortunately the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report was much too conservative, this being largely date to a “cut-off date” for consensus consideration of the latest data published in the scientific literature – the 2007 IPCC Report was accordingly several years out if date when it was published.

Thus data from 2 independent sources (see: “Recent CO2 rises exceed worst case scenarios”, New Scientist, 2007) reveal that actual rates of carbon dioxide (CO2) emission are the same or worse than in the worst case IPCC scenario A1F1 that, according to the 2007 IPCC Summary, will lead to catastrophic, long-term stabilization at (upper estimates) 790 ppm CO2, and a 6 degree centigrade higher temperature and 3.7 meter sea level rise relative to pre-industrial levels i.e. CO2 catastrophically at twice today’s level of 385 ppm , temperatures 4-5 degrees Centigrade above today’s and sea level 0.8-3.5 metres above today’s.

The latest scientific findings are that the IPCC 2007 Report has greatly under-estimated the rate of melting of Arctic Ice, including that of Greenland - water from melted ice is lubricating and speeding up the movement of glaciers to the sea; the so-called  “albedo flip” involving converting light-reflecting, white ice to light-absorbing, dark sea is dramatically speeding up loss of Arctic sea ice; and the consequent increase in temperature in the Arctic provides a positive feedback to increase sea ice  and Greenland ice sheet melting (for analysis and dramatic images of Arctic ice melting.

The latest scientific findings have dramatically superseded the 2007 IPCC Report warnings of severe problems in the developing world already and dire global consequences in future decades. The time frame has been dramatically reduced. Thus the top US climate scientist Dr James Hansen says that the “tipping point” for the melting of Arctic ice has already been reached at 385 ppm atmospheric CO2 and it is apparent that the present atmospheric CO2 is sufficient to completely remove summer-time Arctic sea ice (some scientists say this may be completely gone by 2013).  However most alarming is the potential instability of large ice sheets, especially those of West Antarctica and Greenland.

According to Dr Hansen, in calling for an immediate moratorium on coal power,

“If disintegration of these ice sheets passes their tipping points, dynamical collapse could proceed out of our control. If it melts completely, West Antarctica alone contains enough water to cause about 20 feet (6 meters) of sea-level rise. There are also tipping points in life systems. Today, as global temperature increases at a rate of about 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.36 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade, isotherms (a line of average temperature) are moving poleward at a rate of about 50-60 kilometers (35 miles) per decade. In response, some species are moving.”

The December 2007  Bali Conference sought to define “CO2 pollution reduction targets” for the world but was effectively wrecked by the world’s worst per capita greenhouse polluters, Australia, Canada and Bush-US. However the science has – again – overtaken the variously dishonest, greedy, corrupt, blinkered and cowardly politicians and the selfish vested interests they serve against the interests of Humanity. 

The Climate Emergency means that the Bali-wrecking Australian, US and Canadian position of “no 2020 targets” is an insult to Humanity demanding immediate retraction.  According to top US climate scientist Dr James Hansen we need “negative CO2 emissions” now to reduce the earth’s atmospheric CO2 from a current dangerous 385 ppm to a sustainable level of about 300-350 ppm, as reported recently by the BBC,

“But Dr Hansen stressed that the point of no return had not been reached - that irreversible change had not taken place. He said that to get the Arctic ice to recover would require a reduction in CO2 concentrations down to about 300 or 350 ppmv. He believed this was possible, and called for greater energy efficiency and corrective pricing of carbon to allow cleaner technologies to compete and take over from fossil fuels.”

The top UK climate scientist Professor James Lovelock FRS predicts acute danger to 6-9 billion people and over 6 billion deaths this century  (see: here ; see also Lovelock, J. (2006), The Revenge of Gaia: Why the Earth is Fighting Back – and How We Can Still Save Humanity (Allen Lane, London)).

Already 16 million people die avoidably each year due to deprivation and deprivation exacerbated disease However a combination of climate change, decreased agricultural yields in  the tropics, peak oil and the US biofuel perversion and competition for global food by India and China have dramatically increased the global grain prices that have doubled in the last year. This is already contributing to global avoidable mortality and raises the spectre of a massive, Third World re-run now of the man-made, “market forces” Bengal famine of 1943-1945 in British-ruled India  (6-7 million perished in Bengal and the neighbouring states of Assam, Orissa and Bihar as the price of rice doubled and then quadrupled under a merciless, racist British administration) (see “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950” (G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/1375/247/ ).

On Saturday February 9, 2008 I attended a Climate Convergence Conference  in Melbourne of about 200 people from a variety of Climate Action Groups, This Climate Conference involved a series of talks from activists, workshops, audience participation  (I wasn’t an official  speaker but got a good response from standing up and telling them all about the mounting Third World Global Avoidable Mortality Holocaust due to rising food prices) and the launch of an excellent, must-read,  Friends of the Earth-sponsored book entitled “Climate Code Red – the Case for a Sustainability Emergency” by David Spratt (from Carbon Equity) and Philip Sutton (Greenleap Strategic Institute). The essence of “Climate Code Red” ( it can be downloaded: http://www.climatecodered.net/ )  is that the World is facing a Climate Emergency and a Sustainability Emergency because we have passed crucial atmospheric CO2 “tipping points”, “Climate Code red” further declares that,  as demanded by Dr James Hansen, we need not “CO2 emissions reduction targets” or   “zero CO2 emissions”  but  NEGATIVE CO2 EMISSIONS to return the Planet to a safe, sustainable 300-350 ppm CO2.

At this Melbourne Climate Convergence meeting various activist groups decided to form a Climate Emergency Coalition to urgently spread the message and to lobby for a Declaration of a State of Emergency in Australia and the World to meet the Sustainability  Emergency. As Dr Hansen has said (see above), we urgently need a lowering of atmospheric CO2 to about 300-350 ppm and a major step nowmust be an immediate moratorium on coal power - we must keep fossil fuels in the ground to save Humanity and the Biosphere.     

Dr Gideon Polya,  MWC News Chief political editor, published some 130 works in a 4 decade scientific career, most recently a huge pharmacological reference text "Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds" (CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, New York & London, 2003), and is currently writing a book on global mortality ---
Other articles by this author 


This_Category
Category:: Editorial

Recommend this article...




Did you enjoy this article? Please bookmark it onto:
Digg!Reddit!Del.icio.us!Newsvine!Blogmarks!Yahoo!

Quote this article on your site | Views: 4104

Comments (16)
RSS comments
1. 11-02-2008 03:33
Over 400 World Wide Prominent Scientists
Over 400 World Wide Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007. 
 
See http://tinyurl.com/2dv6nz
Guest
drcoles@inteliorg.comNOSPAM! ">Dr F Coles
2. 11-02-2008 09:46
Bald unsubstantiated denial is ....
Bald, unsubstantiated denial in the face of the greatest threat ever to Humnanity is utterly unacceptable.  
 
The World is facing a catastrophe according to the huge international consensus of the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report based on peer-reviewed scientific information to hand by 2005. 
 
In the last few years top world climate scientists such as Dr James Hansen and his colleagues have found that the melting of Arctic sea ice and Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets is proceeding at an accelerating rate beyond the predictions of the IPCC. 
 
In my article I quote and reference one of America\'s top climate scientists Dr James Hansen clearly stating that the current 385 ppm CO2 is a \"tipping point\" that we have already reached for total Arctic sea ice loss in summer - plus Arctic and global warming, sea level rises , species extinctions, ecosystem destruction THAT IS ALREADY HAPPENING (those who DENY these PALPABLY EVIDENT CURRENT LOSSES are simply LYING). 
 
The dangerous, anti-social stupidities of the climate change sceptics are akin to those who deny the consequences of cigarette smoking that have been known to medical science for 50 years (5 million deaths annually, 0.5 billion excess deaths in a century at current rates) - except that according to the outstanding UK climate scientist Professor James Lovelock FRS, unaddressed global warming will kill over 6 billion people this century Lovelock on Global warming: 6 billion will perish this century
 
Of course most of those 6 billion will be the impoverished non-Europeans of Spaceship Earth and thus egregiously dishonest Bush Administration climate sceptic denial in the interests of profligate US greed and pollution becomes Climate Racism through support for Climate Criminality and Climate Genocide.  
 
However mass murder of non-Europeans is de rigeur for both the warmongering, mass infanticidal Racist Bush-ites and the war-mongering, child-killing Racist neo-Bush-ite, Bush-Lite Clintonite neo-Bush-ites (see: US mass infanticide. 4 million reasons why Hilary Clinton is unfit to be President ).
Guest
gpolya@optusnet.com.auNOSPAM! ">Dr Gideon Polya
3. 11-02-2008 14:12
Tipping
I was once out walking with a friend, I think we were saving the world, we were talking about the US running amok, after the fall of the Soviets, my friend said, (realize we were technical people ), “without negative feedback stability is lost”, he was projecting from the world of electronics to world at large. 
The correct percentage of feedback, keeps analogue circuits stable, no violent swings ending in the avalanche/tipping point. 
The world climate to me seems like a massive analogue device, so when I read Prof. James Lovelock, where wrote of: first the unstable swings in the climate followed by a sudden reseting to a new stable state, it made perfect sense to me. 
I had to write an algorithm in one of my programs, it went hunting for the knee and then tracked the change, to a new steady state, this was electronics, but it seems to fit with what I am reading here. 
I then had to back track to return to the original state, and of course there was hysteresis . 
To return to the original steady state one had to go past the force of the tipping point. 
At the knee you could control the state but once past by the merest fraction all control was lost, and no further change of force was needed, tip that was it. 
That is how I am reading this article regarding CO2. 
As for positive feedback, thats what turns amplifiers into oscillators, Antarctic ice into rock. (in the case of warming)  
 
Mike
Registered
4. 11-02-2008 18:39
Over 400 World Wide Prominent Scientists
Over 400 World Wide Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007. 
See http://tinyurl.com/2dv6nz
Guest
5. 11-02-2008 19:01
Positive feedback & climate doom
Mike - your electronic feedback analogy is apt. As a biological scientist the feedback analogies I use are, for example, resource status and positive feedforward and negative feedback on populations (e.g. lemmings).  
 
In relation to metabolic control (balance, homeostasis by regulation of key enzymes or catalysts), specific biochemical pathways are often regulated by feedforward activation by excess of particular PRECURSOR metabolites of a key, \\\\\\\"allosterically\\\\\\\"-regulated enzyme catalyzing a key irreversible step (they bind to the enzyme and make it operate faster) - conversely excess concentrations of particular END PRODUCTS of the pathway often exert negative feedback (binding to the enzyme and inhibiting it, making it catalyze the reaction more slowly; end-product inhibition, feedback inhibition) ). 
 
Thus if we have a biochemical pathway involving the reversible (AB, CD) or irreversible (B->C) successive interconversions of metabolites (small chenmical compounds) and catalyzed, respectively, by enzymes E(AB), E(BC) and E(CD) then a higher concnetration of precursor A will activate E(BC) and make B->C go faster; conversely as the end product D increases it binds better to E(BC), inhibiting the enzyme and hence making B-> C go slower. 
 
An analogous process would be an industrial process of going from growing grapes to making wine - a grape glut would increase production (feedforward activation) and a wine glut would slow down production (feedback inhibition).  
 
Top UK climate scientist Professor James Lovelock FRS in discussing loss of this kind of oscillatory regulation - as described in his book \\\\\\\"The Revenge of Gaia\\\\\\\" - has used the analogy of a pleasure boat above Niagara Falls - the engines counteract the changes in current but if the engines slowly fail then it is remorselessly swept to its doom.  
 
A domestic thermostat and indeed our own 37 degrees Celsius physiological set-point system are further analogies.  
 
Some of the positive feedbacks in relation to the Arctic are crudelu summarized thus: global warming speeds up sea ice melting (e.g. to FINALLY overcome winter-summer feedback controls and oscillations and yield permanent no summer ice) -> white reflecting surface replaced by black light absorbing surface (the so-called \\\\\\\"albedo flip\\\\\\\") -> even more warming (positive feedback as opposed to homeostatic negative feedback) -> more loss, more warming -> increased Greenland air temperature -> increased loss of Greenland ice sheet -> increased lubrication of glaciers -> increased de-glaciation -> increased sea level -> -> goodbye London, New York, Bangkok, Calcutta, Dacca.
Guest
gpolya@optusnet.com.auNOSPAM! ">Dr Gideon Polya
6. 11-02-2008 19:36
Top scientific bodies affirm crisis
Readers of this thread - re climate sceptic posts #1 and #4, repeated, crude, bald, unsubstantiated denial by unspecified people does not constitute an argument - indeed it is merely aggressive and demeaning obfuscation. 
 
In contrast, the many prestigious authoritative scientific bodies that affirm the acute seriousness of man-made global warming include, for example, the prestigious US National Academy of Sciences and many other National Academies of Science (G8 countries, Brazil, China, India) (National academies of Science joint statement on seriousness of global warming): the US American Association for the Advancement of Science (the world's biggest general scientific organization)(AAAS - global warming a growing threat to society); the prestigious UK Royal Society (Climate change controversies - a simple guide); Australia's premier CSIRO scientific research organization (CSIRO - global warming likely to speed up); and the all-country scientific consensus-based IPCC (summary of the summary of the 2007 IPCC 4th Assessment synthesis report). 
 
The intelligent reader can make up his/her mind about the credibility of the documented assertions above of the world's outstanding scientific organizations  
VERSUS  
repeated, unsubstantiated, uncredentialled, bald denial from a blogger.
Guest
gpolya@optusnet.com.auNOSPAM! ">Dr Gideon Polya
7. 11-02-2008 22:33
Top scientific bodies affirm crisis
I am a global warming skeptic.  
 
However, I do believe that we need to take steps to reduce carbon emissions. Reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and planting trees are good things for reasons other than reducing the impact of global warming. To be honest, global warming sounds like a fad but if it leads to a cleaning up of mankind’s collective “act”, let people believe in it.  
I approve of “what” global warming activists are doing, just not “why”.
Guest
...
8. 12-02-2008 02:17
When scepticism is irresponsible
I find it hard to reconcile global warming scepticism with the overwhelming, authoritative scientific consensus on the matter (see for example the opinions of the world\'s most eminent scientific bodies on the global warming emergency listed and linked in post #6).  
 
Now it is fine to be sceptical about everything (that indeed is fundamental to scientific inquiry) but unsubstantiated and uncredentialled public expression of bald scepticism in the face of such an overwhelming scientific consensus about (A) GLOBAL WARMING, something that threatens the lives of 6-9 billion people this century (see report by the prestigious UK Royal Society on a Royal Society lecture by Professor James Lovelock FRS lecture report: Humans at war with Earth on climate changge says Lovelock )is akin to denying the overwhelming scientific evidence for (B) SMOKING (something that kills 5 million annually and is set to kill 0.5 billion people in the next 100 years at current rates). 
 
Public scepticism about (B) that has the effect of damaging public health campaigns against SMOKING (and which are aimed at saving 5 million lives annually and 0.5 billion lives in the coming century) can be seen as highly anti-social and irresponsible. 
 
How then should one regard unsubstantiated, uncredentialled public scepticism about (A) that has the effect of damaging collective advocacy by an overwhelming majority of scientists and directed to saving ecosystems, species, the biosphere and the lives of over 6 billion people?  
 
Further if ignorant, uncredentialled scepticism impacted only upon a solitary and blinkered SMOKER sceptic it would be sad and unfortunate - but when it publicly detracts from the safety of 6 billion fellow human beings in contradiction of an overwhelming scientific consensus then it is highly irresponsible. Ditto for unsubstantiated, uncredentialled scepticism about global warming that is regarded as a major threat to humanity (6.5 billion people currently, over 9 billion by 2050) by an overwhelming scientific consensus.
Guest
gpolya@optusnet.com.auNOSPAM! ">Dr Gideon Polya
9. 12-02-2008 09:33
Spin.
I saw a program dealing with the connection between CO2 and global warming most if not all present were scientist. One fellow presented a graph drawn from ancient ice core readings. 
It showed clearly that the increase of global warming 
caused the increase in CO2. 
Thus proving the skeptics were right, yes? NO! Another fellow showed the completed graph, the two lines crossed, and CO2 was acting as a catalyst adding to the global warming. Positive feedback. 
I might add no one challenged the extended graph. Some spin but thats all. 
Why would men of science do such shoddy things. 
I think they walked into a trap because the incomplete graph was jumped on. 
 
Mike
Registered
10. 13-02-2008 01:04
Spin.
I saw a similar documentary. As the earth’s temperature increased it decreased the amount of carbon dioxide that the ocean could hold. So carbon dioxide was released therefore causing an increase in atmospheric temperature which in turn released more carbon dioxide etc. As you said before; a feed forward reaction.  
I saw that documentary a while ago. It was well balanced and had representatives from both sides of the argument. It has since been a while since I have heard anything that has been so unbiased.  
That graph about ice-core data has been used for the “global warming” argument without stating that the increase in earths temperature caused the release of carbon dioxide. Face it, both sides only see the evidence that supports their own argument.  
After a while the public (those who can really make a difference) see only the bickering and close their ears to the argument.  
Ok, so global warming is a problem. What are you going to do about it?  
Most likely the things you would do are good for reasons other than global warming. It seems these days everything good people do for the environment is to stop global warming. For example a decade ago we planted trees to prevent soil erosion, salinity and to feed koala bears. Now we plant trees to trap carbon.  
There are reasons other than global warming to do good.  
Perhaps it would be best if you focus a little more on the other reasons for doing good to if you want to gain support from people who don’t believe in global warming and those who sit on the fence.
Guest
...
11. 13-02-2008 04:01
Top Scientific advice
Mike - I saw the ABC TV documentary and the outrageous abuse of data by the "sceptics" who left out the data for the last 40 years that demonstrated an expected correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global warming (the basic science about this was done by John Tyndall FRS back in the late 19th century!) 
 
Fortunately Australia's top science journalist and top climate scientist (both of whom I have had the pleasure of meeting) were on hand on the TV program panel to deal effectively with the sceptic mis-information in the public interest. 
 
If you need IT, car or medical advice you go to a top IT, car mechanic or medico , respectively. Ditto in relation to climate science. 
 
Indeed in relation to whether you should smoke (you most definitely should NOT!!) you could successively go to your excellent local General Practitioner, a top thoracic surgeon, the college of surgeons and thence to national or world medical bodies - rather than to anonymous bloggers exercising their "democratic freedom of speech". 
 
Ditto with climate science. We should take the advice of the top US climate scientist Dr James Hansen very seriously indeed (immediate moratorium on coal power; reduce CO2 to 300-350 ppm) and ditto the top UK climate scientist Professor Lovelock FRS (similar advice).  
 
The advice of the world's leading climate scientists such as these, endorsed by the world's leading scientific bodies (see links in post #6) carries vastly more weight than that of anonymous bloggers or a tiny minority of eccentric or over-critical scientists. 
 
Thus if you see a child lying in the middle of the road you could respond by immediately calling an ambulance - or you could be "properly sceptical" of the "alarmist" hypothesis that "something is wrong" and not only ignore the child but urge others to do so as well. Really!
Guest
gpolya@optusnet.com.auNOSPAM! ">Dr Gideon Polya
12. 15-02-2008 04:16
You're a skeptic?
It's amazing to me that anyone would claim to be a global warming "skeptic" at this point. 
 
I mean, when do you quit being a skeptic? When you DROWN?  
 
The ice sheets are melting, the glaciers are melting, and you're a SKEPTIC? 
 
Ooooooo ... kay ......
Guest
13. 15-02-2008 05:41
PHOTOS - Arctic ice melting fast!
I agree Phil - you just cannot understand how anyone could be a "global warming sceptic" after seeing these photos showing an astonishing loss in JUST ONE YEAR of of perennial Arctic ice (ice that normally remains all year): Photo in the News: Arctic Ice Melting Rapidly, Study Shows.
Guest
gpolya@optusnet.com.auNOSPAM! ">Dr Gideon Polya
14. 19-02-2008 08:24
Back to school
Dr Hansen really needs to take a grade 8 physics class on the laws of Thermodynamics.  
 
Paying especial attention to the second law that is only relevant in a closed system. The greenhouse effect is only observed in a closed system (a model) and if it worked the same in a open system (the earth, open to any elements as in the atmosphere or surrounding it) then the atmospheres temperature should be raising? Right? 
Not much, it’s only gone up by .01% in the history of recording, doesn’t sound like much of a greenhouse effect to me? 
Here’s a simple explanation in this link, how evaporation of the oceans and heating of the land is from the SUN and cause weather patterns and our seasons.  
 
http://earthednet.org/Ocean_Materials/Mini_Studies/Atmos_Ocean_Interaction/Atmos_Ocean_Interaction.html 
 
In a open system(earth), the sun(the heat) heats the surface of the globe . The ground and the oceans heat during the day light hours, the air next to it heat rises and the heat goes up into the atmosphere(the cold). 
Some my accumulate lower as cloud cover and return as moisture(H2O) or frozen water somewhere else. The heat is gone in the night hours and the heat does not circulate and return. If it did? Then we would see a rapid increase in the atmospheres temperate which we don’t, it’s as low as a .01% rise.  
And here lies the reason why science needs to be checked and rechecked for authenticity regularly. Checked for basic fundamental understanding, deductions/guesses and conclusions based on laws and presagers. It took century’s for theories or ideas to be excepted and most were dead before getting the credit disserved or giving someone else the idea and them taking it one step forward in it’s fruition as a of law in science or a hypotheses for another scientists to take the reins and prove or disprove a idea. 
 
Not even knowing( I assume?) that the theory you are espousing is against the laws of ALL know science? Then you better have a MOUNTAIN of evidence to back up your bullsheet. And if you need to fight in court to get the actual modeling program to prove it right or wrong from a highly most trusted source prove the next apocalypse? Meh! 
 
This kind of junk science is cancer and is corrupted by the anti human/eugenics idea of our sin of over crowding and self destruction/mutilation on the planet for greed. Mostly directed at the west, but we are all to controlled already to go out pollute or cause destruction to our planet without repercussion. 
I live where all our power is clean hydroelectric, we are lucky and have large amounts of runoff. But we used coal back years ago and that’s what built us before the dams. So why shouldn’t Africa get to use coal power they have as a people? Don’t poor countries get to use the SAME power we used in older times? And if you think no? Then lets build 30 or so nuclear plants. It’s in almost every county as I type this and some countries are almost ALL nuclear. Lots in the USA, Canada, China, Europe, etc.  
So why don’t we allow people who are struggling and need the technology to generator power from whatever source we used in the past to give then simple basis things we take for granted … like life and a future?
Guest
15. 19-02-2008 11:39
Greenhouses.
I have a question regarding the following: 
 
Paying especial attention to the second law that is only relevant in a closed system. The greenhouse effect is only observed in a closed system (a model) and if it worked the same in a open system (the earth, open to any elements as in the atmosphere or surrounding it) then the atmospheres temperature should be raising? Right?  
Not much, it’s only gone up by .01% in the history of recording, doesn’t sound like much of a greenhouse effect to me? 
 
If I had a greenhouse,  
how much would the glass heat up w.r.t the soil and air below, 
I have a solar water heater, on a warm day I can put my hand on it, but the water is almost boiling. 
If I changed the material from glass to a clear plastic, would I get the same exact results as for glass?  
This is just a question you understand. 
 
Mike
Registered
16. 19-02-2008 13:40
Greenhouses#2
From a little reading,it seems that the glasshouse analogy is rather misleading. The explanation I read comparing true green house affect with global greenhouse a different are different. Mind you in both cases the velocity of the light waves would slow, in the glass medium, and in the atmosphere that would shift the spectrum further into the infrared. 
Not sure how the velocity would change with different gases etc. 
I understand that certain gases absorb infrared energy, and of course re-radiate it, now surely if the sun heated the earth to higher temperature, the re radiated infrared energy would be absorbed by these gases, and thus the temperature of the atmosphere would rise, but apparently not. Now if you had more absorbent gases, no or little variation in the suns energy. Then surely more heat would be trapped then re radiated, I am not so sure that there would be an apparent increase in temperature of the atmosphere, increase in energy yes, more of it .  
And has any 'boffin' out there measured the current energy of the sun against passed records. 
 
Just thinking. 
 
Mike
Registered

Write Comment
  • Please keep the topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article.
  • Personal verbal attacks will be deleted.
  • Please don't use comments to plug your web site. Such material will be removed.
  • Just ensure to *Refresh* your browser for a new security code to be displayed prior to clicking on the 'Send' button.
  • Keep in mind that the above process only applies if you simply entered the wrong security code.
Name:
E-mail
Homepage
Title:
BBCode:Web AddressEmail AddressBold TextItalic TextUnderlined TextQuoteCodeOpen ListList ItemClose List
Comment:

Code:* Code
I wish to be contacted by email regarding additional comments

Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.4


Tags:  Gideon Polya CO2 Emissions Climate Climate Change
Last Updated ( Sunday, 10 February 2008 )
 
< Prev Content   Next Content >
 

Translate

Enter Amount: