Hey, I sent you a PM but I will post a modified version here:
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle#section-3
Any thermal combustion will contribute to a release of thermal energy. You argument, no matter how you twist it, will always be positive as thermal emissions contribute to the heating of the surroundings. It's basic thermodynamics.
The extent in which global warming is "man-made", however, doesn't quite make any sense. The world has continued to go through natural cycles of heating and cooling long before our proposed existence. If ice-ages have occurred long before man-kind, what factors would have caused the periodic flux of global temperatures? Could not have been man-kind.
As the good old saying states, "correlation does not mean causation". As said, combustion of fuels will release thermal energy. The more thermal energy we produce will heat the surroundings. But as CO2 emissions arise, which have a lower specific heat than air [1], thermal energy cannot be trapped as effectively as air. These emissions are the cause of global warming. They may even result in a global cooling. You will need CO2 to be as "thick as glass" in order to trap heat it deflects solar rays to the Earth. Furthermore, we prefer air, copper, and other materials with a higher specific heat to cool our electronics.
Although we see a correlation between CO2 emissions and global change in these periodic cycles, current changes to our CO2 concentrates do not follow the trend. CO2, and other greenhouse gases are not significant variables to these periodic cycles.
Anyways, as your question states "cause of Global-Warming", there are hundreds of alternatives available that will release thermal energy, and thus, as stated here and above, man-kind is not the "cause" of global warming. You’re asking a trick question. Man-kind did not exist prior to these cycles that resorted in "global warming". However, if you want to point out simple thermodynamics, sure, you're right on the grounds that man-kind, when we combust materials/fuel, it will expel thermal energy into the environment. Good on yeah.
Alternative Sources:
[1]http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-capacity-gases-d_159.html
Cheers
The more conversations we have over this topic will help bring some light. It’s merely beneficial; but it would be appreciated, given the ethical conduct of your discipline, that you uphold to your disciplines standards in its discussion.
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle#section-3
Any thermal combustion will contribute to a release of thermal energy. You argument, no matter how you twist it, will always be positive as thermal emissions contribute to the heating of the surroundings. It's basic thermodynamics.
The extent in which global warming is "man-made", however, doesn't quite make any sense. The world has continued to go through natural cycles of heating and cooling long before our proposed existence. If ice-ages have occurred long before man-kind, what factors would have caused the periodic flux of global temperatures? Could not have been man-kind.
As the good old saying states, "correlation does not mean causation". As said, combustion of fuels will release thermal energy. The more thermal energy we produce will heat the surroundings. But as CO2 emissions arise, which have a lower specific heat than air [1], thermal energy cannot be trapped as effectively as air. These emissions are the cause of global warming. They may even result in a global cooling. You will need CO2 to be as "thick as glass" in order to trap heat it deflects solar rays to the Earth. Furthermore, we prefer air, copper, and other materials with a higher specific heat to cool our electronics.
Although we see a correlation between CO2 emissions and global change in these periodic cycles, current changes to our CO2 concentrates do not follow the trend. CO2, and other greenhouse gases are not significant variables to these periodic cycles.
Anyways, as your question states "cause of Global-Warming", there are hundreds of alternatives available that will release thermal energy, and thus, as stated here and above, man-kind is not the "cause" of global warming. You’re asking a trick question. Man-kind did not exist prior to these cycles that resorted in "global warming". However, if you want to point out simple thermodynamics, sure, you're right on the grounds that man-kind, when we combust materials/fuel, it will expel thermal energy into the environment. Good on yeah.
Alternative Sources:
[1]http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-capacity-gases-d_159.html
Cheers
The more conversations we have over this topic will help bring some light. It’s merely beneficial; but it would be appreciated, given the ethical conduct of your discipline, that you uphold to your disciplines standards in its discussion.
Response:
Your submission illustrates the issue of so many misconceptions on global warming.
It is not the heat of emissions that is causing global warming. What is causing global warming is the atmosphere is becoming more efficient at trapping heat that would normally be radiated out into space. The amount of energy added to the atmosphere by all of humanity's activities is trivial in comparison to the amount of energy coming in from the Sun. We have increased the efficiency of the atmosphere to trap heat by about 1%. That amount of extra solar energy trapped every day is equal to about 100 years of energy released by man.
You really didn't even address the question, so, no, you did not prove man made global warming is not real.
Robert's clearly genuine misconception about thermal emissions being the cause of global warming is sometimes used in articles where it appears as if the author is being deliberately misleading. As in one I saw where the heat released by undersea volcanoes was being compared with our thermal emissions, implying that this comparison had relevance.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to another irrelevant point Robert made:
Many coolants and methods of cooling electronics are used and in a few situations carbon dioxide is preferred to air, despite its higher cost.
However, I totally agree with Robert that people need to talk about the subject, as well as listening to what other people say.
I am totally in agreement with the idea of 'talking.' Unfortunately, much of it has fallen into screaming arguments. And, there is a definite strategy on the part of the deniers to bully and intimidate climate scientists in the hope of driving them from the public forum. Unfortunately, the strategy is working very well. Scientists, in general, simply will not engage in public discussion of the topic because of the personal, and sometimes vicious, attacks. Scientists are not trained or experienced for that kind of hand-to-hand combat and the denier organizations know this. If we can get them to drop that strategy then I think you can get the scientists to come back to the discussion.
ReplyDeleteYet you blindly believe in global warming without NY proof.
ReplyDeleteNo proof? Wow!
ReplyDeleteWows not good enough. Here's some proof. TheEarth has cooled 16 years running. And Carbon makes up less than 5 percent of the greenhouse gases.
ReplyDeleteDude, take some time to read the other submissions before you go ruining your supper.
ReplyDeleteThose Your complaint has been answered multiple times.
Like I said, Wow!
ReplyDeleteYes, screaming arguments is a good way of describing the way some people
ReplyDeleteact on the internet. In my latest book, which may never get published.
(Nearly all my previous books are for children and I'm not even sure my
latest book would appeal to people of any age) I used the phase "virulent
slanging match jokingly called a ‘debate’ between the so called ‘deniers’ and
the so called ‘alarmists’ about Global Warming."
I had the same
problem writing about evolution and I have given up article writing
about evolution because of the totally offensive and irrelevant insults I
was receiving. Now I only mention evolution when it is unavoidable in
the context, as in my book about Koalas. In my latest book rapid
evolution driven by global warming is an integral part of the book, so I
can't avoid it.
I admire your persistence in the face of the insults you have received on this blog.
I would love to write a book on evolution, but your comments illustrate why I am holding back. Just how many fights can I pick before I get overwhelmed?
ReplyDeleteFrom one of his other posts:
ReplyDelete"There's no doubt in my mind that Westminster is the centre of a satanic abuse network."
Should we be surprised that one of most deluded deniers also believes that the devil runs the English parliament?
The Earth can warm and cool on its own natural cycle but what the fuss is about is that we have broken the cycle and instead of cooling we are going to get very warm. Its called global warming and it is caused by burning fossil fuels. Its not difficult to grasp. Read it up. http://globalwarmingsimplified.weebly.com/
ReplyDelete