About Us

Whata Fool

wrote:

On Dec 9, 6:35 pm, Whata Fool wrote:
And the question of the various gases is of some importance,
because the presumption of CO2 existing separate of water and
water vapor in the Earth's nitrogen atmosphere may need to be
re-examined to see why the climate change doesn't seem to
track the CO2 concentration, and why the CO2 concentration
does not reflect the amount emitted by man burning fossil fuel.

WF. You should see in this also that the water forms calthrates with
CO2. Because of this and many other reasons, a rainforest, it does not
become carbon neutral for the carbon it absorbs and releases with
decomposition, but remains the most effective absrober of CO2 and
converter to oxygen.

A young forest, sure, but a mature forest begins to have
as much decay as new growth else it would be obvious that wood
would be seen to increase at the base as fallen limbs.

It cannot be denied that at least part of the measured yearly CO2
increase is from natural causes.

The increase in concentration in the air is not the big question,
do plants in the ocean combine the carbon with other minerals while
releasing oxygen. If so, there should not be an increase of carbon
in the ocean, and the PH should not change drastically.
On TV I saw the bones of a whale, and wonder just where
the calcium comes from, and how much can be available to become
limestone.

Perhaps even that it is about 900 yrs
since the very intense warming of the medieaval warm period (which is
the normal time that CO2 begins to rise after warming period), or the
natural upswing in temperatures coming after the little ice age which
may affect the vapor equilibrium with the ocean or the greater
metabolism in unfrozen tundra.

I am sorry to say I can't be as certain as you, but there seems
to be a lot of unanswered questions about the supposed downward
radiation of GHGs, on the ocean, any thermal energy input to the
top inch should increase evaporation, possibly even causing more
cooling of the water than if there was no downward radiation.

So the AGW trivializing the problem of averaging all radiation
globally appears inadequate to account for the different effects of
GHGs according to local conditions.

That the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere remain the same
regardless of human input, suggests that it is indeed the natural CO2
increase and the deforestation that is responsible for almost all of
this increase.

I think deforestation is not only overstated, but poorly
understood. In Brazil, it is apparently banned, and I don't
see how anybody can clear land for crops without a lot of
very heavy machinery, anybody can check this for themselves
by simply trying to remove the roots of a 2 inch diameter tree.

There is bootleg timber cutting, but those criminals would
have no reason to remove the roots, and if timber is dried and
made into long lasting items, the carbon is sequestered for
longer than if the forest is left undisturbed.

I see the whole premise of AGW as faulty, based more
on gossip and rumor than on facts. In fact, most of the people
that support the idea of AGW are just about the dumbest people
I have ever seen so enthused with something so trivial.
Temperatures in any locale are more dependent on wind
direction than anything else, just look at the weather maps today,
ice all over the northern plains, and 70 degree weather in the
Tennessee valley, solely because of the location of the low
pressure areas and the weather fronts.

How something like that can be included sensibly in any
energy budget is a laugh.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Can water evaporate in nitrogen atmosphere?	I R A Darth Aggie[_2_]	sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology)	0	December 11th 07 01:15 AM
Key claims against global warming evaporate!	Roger Coppock	sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology)	47	August 21st 05 09:27 PM
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make'm read!--------	Leonard Abbott	uk.sci.weather (UK Weather)	0	May 4th 04 02:21 PM
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make'm read!--------	Leonard Abbott	alt.talk.weather (General Weather Talk)	0	May 4th 04 02:19 PM
Ozone-, Nitrogen Dioxyde-, Sulphur Dioxyde & PM10- measurements for Belgium	Bjorn Viaene	uk.sci.weather (UK Weather)	0	July 22nd 03 10:48 PM

Menu

About Us