New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming

[Micah Foehammer]

SM,

Great answer!

Two questions:

1) Wouldn't there also be an effect on Earth's albedo? Wouldn't replacing trees with concrete increase albedo?

Albedos for common materials

Fresh asphalt 0.04
Worn asphalt 0.12
Bare soil 0.17
Green grass 0.25
Conifer forest 0.08 to 0.15
Deciduous trees 0.15 to 0.18
New concrete 0.55

2) If all of the Co2 from trees, goes into the earth's atmosphere, shouldn't some (not all) of it be absorbed by the oceans (Henry's Law)? So the net effect from the CO2 alone would still be a rise in atmospheric Co2 (and subsequently temperature) but also a rise in ocean acidity to boot.

[robertthebard]

Originally Posted by Micah Foehammer ROTFLMAO And the first part of that comment basically summed up the gist of this thread, aside from the occassional "Mr Wizard on crack" post. I just wanted to check the source was all. I've been to a lot of CC/GW websites and it's no surprise that the tone and contents vary all over the place. I just wanted to know where you got that from.

Some of those sites may no longer exist. Some of them were likely like my website, up for a year, and then gone, or put up by quacks, and taken down in embarrassment, etc etc. I'm sure there are a lot of original movies by the ScyFy channel that will come across the same way eventually, produced by quacks to promote awareness of a situation that may or may not exist, with side affects that may or may not occur, in a time frame that has yet to be decided.

As I posted earlier, any major storm can be considered to be proof, despite the fact that these storms have been occurring for who knows how long. The tornado that swept Dorothy to Oz was likely an F5, but in the current environmental science environment, that was hard to type, glad I didn't have to say it, any F5 tornado can be considered proof that "they" were right. It wouldn't matter if any of those conditions, or something entirely different were to happen, they can say "We told you so".

Instead of "OMG, if we don't stop, we're going to have an Ice Age!!!", it should be "Current trends in climate patterns indicate that we could be on our way to another Ice Age. As I, and others have pointed out, if we did have an Ice Age, it wouldn't be the first one. Unless GCC scientists are going to attribute those to causes other than natural, then one would have to surmise that warming/cooling trends are indeed the natural order. While they may seem disastrous, they are, in fact, the way things are supposed to be, and these patterns would repeat themselves whether or not man existed, or had technology beyond fire and pointy sticks.

This is the thorn in my side about GCC science; that the planet doing what it has always done is something that mankind has caused. We can't even document that we're accelerating the process since, as Azred pointed out, I believe, we don't have an Earth with no mankind to compare it to. That is the real Inconvenient Truth, we have no way to know whether or not we are accelerating the natural cycle or not, and assuming we are is just as bad as assuming we aren't.

[Micah Foehammer]

Originally Posted by robertthebard Some of those sites may no longer exist. Some of them were likely like my website, up for a year, and then gone, or put up by quacks, and taken down in embarrassment, etc etc.

Sounds like you read that a while ago. No problem. Was just curious is all.

[Azred]

Originally Posted by robertthebard This is the thorn in my side about GCC science; that the planet doing what it has always done is something that mankind has caused. We can't even document that we're accelerating the process since, as Azred pointed out, I believe, we don't have an Earth with no mankind to compare it to. That is the real Inconvenient Truth, we have no way to know whether or not we are accelerating the natural cycle or not, and assuming we are is just as bad as assuming we aren't.

Precisely. The louder someone proclaims "we have all the answers", the more I chuckle at their overinflated ego and poke holes in the theory.

All the energy, both mental and monetary, that people have spent on this topic could have been spent on more important issues, such as working to reduce famines that are claiming the lives of thousands in the world.

[Chewbacca]

Originally Posted by Azred Precisely. The louder someone proclaims "we have all the answers", the more I chuckle at their overinflated ego and poke holes in the theory.

It's a healthy thing to laugh at one's self.

[Azred]

Absolutely. We definitely agree on this particular item.

[John D Harris]

Originally Posted by Azred I was taking organic chemistry at the time and our professor would discuss the science of ozone depletion with us and actively encouraged us to read the articles that were being published at the time, so I suspect I know quite a bit more about it than the average person. Notice that I didn't say it wasn't happening--it was--but I said that all the research at that time was rushed because people would certain they already knew the cause and were looking to prove it.

Az what's the effect of UV radation on the Ozone molecules? Does UV strip electrons or otherwise destroy Ozone molecules?

[John D Harris]

Laughing is good almost anytime.

[Azred]

Originally Posted by John D Harris Az what's the effect of UV radation on the Ozone molecules? Does UV strip electrons or otherwise destroy Ozone molecules?

Wow--now I have to go dig out my chemistry books. I have forgotten more chemistry than most people will ever know...which is really sad because I always loved chemistry.

Yes, ultraviolet can strip electrons, especially in the upper atmosphere where there is more exposure. This leads to ozone radicals which can combine with other chemicals in the upper atmosphere.

[Micah Foehammer]

Originally Posted by John D Harris Az what's the effect of UV radation on the Ozone molecules? Does UV strip electrons or otherwise destroy Ozone molecules?

It works like this JD:

UV radiation less than 240 nm splits an O2 molecule into two O ions. The Oxygen ions then combine with an oxygen molecule to form ozone.

O2 + UV radiation => 2 O

O2 + O = O3

Any excess oxygen ions also recombine with O3 molecules to form Oxygen molecules

O + O3 => 2 O2

Similiarly UV radiation will also split O3 molecules into Oxygen molecules and an oxygen atom. The oxygen atoms then combine into oxygen molecules.

O3 + UV radiation (between 240 and 300 nm) => O2 + O

O + O => O2

The final concentration of O3 is determined by the equilbrium balance between the radiative creation and destruction processes.

ChloroFlourocarbons systematically destroy ozone as follows:

Cl + O3 → ClO + O2

ClO + O3 → Cl + 2 O2

So a single chlorine ion can act as a catalyst to destroy ozone over and over.

Lots more details in this link.

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