Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Greenhouse theory smashed by biggest stone (most potent greenhouse gas is H2O)
Space and Earth Science ^ | March 14, 2006 | University of Leicester

Posted on 03/28/2006 5:52:41 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum

A new theory to explain global warming was revealed at a meeting at the University of Leicester (UK) and is being considered for publication in the journal "Science First Hand". The controversial theory has nothing to do with burning fossil fuels and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

According to Vladimir Shaidurov of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the apparent rise in average global temperature recorded by scientists over the last hundred years or so could be due to atmospheric changes that are not connected to human emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of natural gas and oil. Shaidurov explained how changes in the amount of ice crystals at high altitude could damage the layer of thin, high altitude clouds found in the mesosphere that reduce the amount of warming solar radiation reaching the earth's surface.

Shaidurov has used a detailed analysis of the mean temperature change by year for the last 140 years and explains that there was a slight decrease in temperature until the early twentieth century. This flies in the face of current global warming theories that blame a rise in temperature on rising carbon dioxide emissions since the start of the industrial revolution. Shaidurov, however, suggests that the rise, which began between 1906 and 1909, could have had a very different cause, which he believes was the massive Tunguska Event, which rocked a remote part of Siberia, northwest of Lake Baikal on the 30th June 1908.
The Tunguska Event, sometimes known as the Tungus Meteorite is thought to have resulted from an asteroid or comet entering the earth's atmosphere and exploding. The event released as much energy as fifteen one-megaton atomic bombs. As well as blasting an enormous amount of dust into the atmosphere, felling 60 million trees over an area of more than 2000 square kilometres. Shaidurov suggests that this explosion would have caused "considerable stirring of the high layers of atmosphere and change its structure." Such meteoric disruption was the trigger for the subsequent rise in global temperatures.

Global warming is thought to be caused by the "greenhouse effect". Energy from the sun reaches the earth's surface and warms it, without the greenhouse effect most of this energy is then lost as the heat radiates back into space. However, the presence of so-called greenhouse gases at high altitude absorb much of this energy and then radiate a proportion back towards the earth's surface. Causing temperatures to rise.

Many natural gases and some of those released by conventional power stations, vehicle and aircraft exhausts act as greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide, natural gas, or methane, and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are all potent greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide and methane are found naturally in the atmosphere, but it is the gradual rise in levels of these gases since the industrial revolution, and in particular the beginning of the twentieth century, that scientists have blamed for the gradual rise in recorded global temperature. Attempts to reverse global warming, such as the Kyoto Protocol, have centred on controlling and even reducing CO2 emissions.
However, the most potent greenhouse gas is water, explains Shaidurov and it is this compound on which his study focuses. According to Shaidurov, only small changes in the atmospheric levels of water, in the form of vapour and ice crystals can contribute to significant changes to the temperature of the earth's surface, which far outweighs the effects of carbon dioxide and other gases released by human activities. Just a rise of 1% of water vapour could raise the global average temperature of Earth's surface more then 4 degrees Celsius.

The role of water vapour in controlling our planet's temperature was hinted at almost 150 years ago by Irish scientist John Tyndall. Tyndall, who also provided an explanation as to why the sky is blue, explained the problem: "The strongest radiant heat absorber, is the most important gas controlling Earth's temperature. Without water vapour, he wrote, the Earth's surface would be 'held fast in the iron grip of frost'." Thin clouds at high altitude allow sunlight to reach the earth's surface, but reflect back radiated heat, acting as an insulating greenhouse layer.

Water vapour levels are even less within our control than CO2 levels. According to Andrew E. Dessler of the Texas A & M University writing in 'The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change', "Human activities do not control all greenhouse gases, however. The most powerful greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapour, he says, "Human activities have little direct control over its atmospheric abundance, which is controlled instead by the worldwide balance between evaporation from the oceans and precipitation."
As such, Shaidurov has concluded that only an enormous natural phenomenon, such as an asteroid or comet impact or airburst, could seriously disturb atmospheric water levels, destroying persistent so-called 'silver', or noctilucent, clouds composed of ice crystals in the high altitude mesosphere (50 to 85km). The Tunguska Event was just such an event, and coincides with the period of time during which global temperatures appear to have been rising the most steadily - the twentieth century. There are many hypothetical mechanisms of how this mesosphere catastrophe might have occurred, and future research is needed to provide a definitive answer.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: mdm; realscience
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-75 next last

1 posted on 03/28/2006 5:52:43 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
Water vapour levels are even less within our control than CO2 levels.

Obviously, tackling this problem will cost even more than we thought [/sarcasm]

2 posted on 03/28/2006 5:55:30 AM PST by ClearCase_guy (Never question Bruce Dickinson!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

We must eradicate all water from the planet immediately or we will all fry!


3 posted on 03/28/2006 5:56:10 AM PST by Wil H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: E. Pluribus Unum
Dihydrogen Monoxide causes global warming!? OMG! Run for the hills!
5 posted on 03/28/2006 5:56:30 AM PST by rarestia ("One man with a gun can control 100 without one." - Lenin / Molwn Labe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
"According to Shaidurov, only small changes in the atmospheric levels of water, in the form of vapour and ice crystals can contribute to significant changes to the temperature of the earth's surface, which far outweighs the effects of carbon dioxide and other gases released by human activities. Just a rise of 1% of water vapour could raise the global average temperature of Earth's surface more then 4 degrees Celsius."
6 posted on 03/28/2006 5:58:49 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Islam Factoid:After forcing young girls to watch his men execute their fathers, Muhammad raped them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum


It sure makes more sense than the fossil fool theory. There were no fossil fuels burning back in the 13th? century when we went through the last temp rise. There are more trees in the USA today than when our Columbus discovered this place. Trees put H2O into the air. Makes more sense than the bearded smelly wackos goofy theory's.


7 posted on 03/28/2006 5:59:37 AM PST by right right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

bump for later


8 posted on 03/28/2006 6:02:39 AM PST by satchmodog9 (Most people stand on the tracks and never even hear the train coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

This is dumb, Everyone know that global warming is caused by Fox News and Republicans.


9 posted on 03/28/2006 6:03:02 AM PST by HEY4QDEMS (Remember 9/11. The left have already forgotten.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

"the apparent rise in average global"

Apparent to whom? Not to anyone smarter then an M&M.

GW is a politicial idology not a science.


10 posted on 03/28/2006 6:04:15 AM PST by edcoil (Reality doesn't say much - doesn't need too)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Notice, we never had global warming problems until everyone started drinking all that bottled water. Now they're all sweating and raising the temperatures and ruining the earth.


11 posted on 03/28/2006 6:06:05 AM PST by tiki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edcoil
GW is a politicial idology not a science.

Did you RTFA?

12 posted on 03/28/2006 6:06:24 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Islam Factoid:After forcing young girls to watch his men execute their fathers, Muhammad raped them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Ping

Thought it might interest you.


13 posted on 03/28/2006 6:09:20 AM PST by A message
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
They are finally talking about water vapor. Carbon dioxide is nothing compared to it.

Plus the water vapor rises more easily than CO2. A moloecule with two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom is considerebly lighter than O2 or N2 (oxygen and nitrogen respectively) and its part of the reason why moisture laden air rises and convection works. (heat transfer is the other part of it).

Water also has a high specific heat, meaning it can hold more thermal energy, per unit of its weight. That's why our oceans make such a good heat sink. Water can absorb heat without its own temperature rising as much as most other substances, due to its hydrogen bonds.

14 posted on 03/28/2006 6:09:21 AM PST by capt. norm (If you can't make a mistake, you can't make anything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

This study is sure to be ignored and its author's reputation smeared. Too many paychecks depend on the fossil-fuel-is-evil theory.


15 posted on 03/28/2006 6:14:33 AM PST by randog (What the...?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Water vapour levels are even less within our control than CO2 levels.

Bingo. That's why the 'global warming' liberals have been avoiding the subject. As long as CO2 can be nade the culprit, it was possible to connect it to mankind and industry....the two biggest enemies of liberalism.

They wanted to get control over energy, and thus have control over virtually all of man's activities. That's why people like George Soros et al sunk so much money into research grants paying scientists to reach foregone conclusions about global warming and ignoring all else.

Why else would they feel the need to realease another global warming scare story every few days?

16 posted on 03/28/2006 6:17:10 AM PST by capt. norm (If you can't make a mistake, you can't make anything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
"The event released as much energy as fifteen one-megaton atomic bombs."

Or one fifteen megaton bomb?

What kind of doofus wrote this piece of drivel?

17 posted on 03/28/2006 6:24:35 AM PST by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
Shaidurov has concluded that only an enormous natural phenomenon, such as an asteroid or comet impact or airburst, could seriously disturb atmospheric water levels, destroying persistent so-called 'silver', or noctilucent, clouds composed of ice crystals in the high altitude mesosphere (50 to 85km).

Sheesh.

While the author of the article discusses global warming caused by greenhouse gases (including H2O), Shaidurov's theory has little to do with greenhouses gases.

I know this just gets in the way of a good rant about the greenhouse gas theory of global warming -- rant away.

18 posted on 03/28/2006 6:26:23 AM PST by delacoert (imperat animus corpori, et paretur statim: imperat animus sibi, et resistitur. -AUGUSTINI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
The simple expansion of irrigation on a massive scale, worldwide, plus building tens of thousands of golf courses with super-duper greens control systems, could explain everything.

The solution?

19 posted on 03/28/2006 6:38:35 AM PST by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

It Is all a LIE!
20 posted on 03/28/2006 6:39:53 AM PST by FreedomNeocon (I'm in no Al-Samood for this Shi'ite.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redbob

The same doofus who wrote:
"the most potent greenhouse gas is water, explains Shaidurov"
It's probably a good guess that the scientist DIDN'T say the most potent greenhouse gas is a liquid.


21 posted on 03/28/2006 6:44:02 AM PST by jjmcgo (Patriarch of the Occident since March 1, 2006)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: capt. norm
They are finally talking about water vapor. Carbon dioxide is nothing compared to it.

All models of GHG-induced global warming include water vapor feedback. If they didn't, they wouldn't work.

22 posted on 03/28/2006 6:55:42 AM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: rarestia
Dihydrogen Monoxide causes global warming!?

Yes and at levels nearly as large as hydrogen hydroxide!

 

 

23 posted on 03/28/2006 7:00:02 AM PST by HawaiianGecko (Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
The simple expansion of irrigation on a massive scale, worldwide, plus building tens of thousands of golf courses with super-duper greens control systems, could explain everything.

70% of the earth's surface is covered with water, but you believe that a few measly irrigation systems and golf courses have a greater impact?

Unbelievable.

24 posted on 03/28/2006 7:02:39 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Islam Factoid:After forcing young girls to watch his men execute their fathers, Muhammad raped them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

..and if we were all driving hydrogen cars today?

Their exhaust is nothing but pure water vapor.


25 posted on 03/28/2006 7:03:31 AM PST by TC Rider (The United States Constitution © 1791. All Rights Reserved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
*Sigh!*

I dunno.

This whole Greenhouse gas thingy was so much more satisfying when we pretended we were saving the planet from destruction. Besides, we could mandate and spend spend trillions of dollars on bigger mufflers for smaller SUVs and the Kyoto Treaty and teaching our kids how to tell other people how uncaring and bad they are.

Now we find out there's not much we can do about it anyway?

This is a helpless feeling, not being in charge of our destiny but just being along for the ride. And all along we thought God was our copilot and we were the ones steering the ship and not Her? It appears our control stick and throttles were actually disconnected!

Pathetic. Please pass the tofu!

26 posted on 03/28/2006 7:05:25 AM PST by Gritty (Politics is the second oldest profession. It bears a striking resemblance to the first-Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TC Rider
How much free hydrogen is available (naturally) on planet Earth?

Where is the largest store of hydrogen on planet Earth?

27 posted on 03/28/2006 7:07:18 AM PST by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilisation is aborting, buggering, and contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
All models of GHG-induced global warming include water vapor feedback. If they didn't, they wouldn't work.

They don't (successfully) include it and that's why they don't work.

I speak from first-hand knowledge as I work with it every day. Alll attempts to emulate the water vapor cycle have failed, so far. Especially where clouds are concerned.

28 posted on 03/28/2006 7:08:36 AM PST by capt. norm (If you can't make a mistake, you can't make anything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Gritty
Pathetic.

Evidently you believe that global climate was static until the day you were born, and now it is suddenly changing.

I regret to inform you that that is not the case.

29 posted on 03/28/2006 7:13:52 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Islam Factoid:After forcing young girls to watch his men execute their fathers, Muhammad raped them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: TC Rider
..and if we were all driving hydrogen cars today? Their exhaust is nothing but pure water vapor.

News Flash: 70% of the earth's surface is covered with water.

30 posted on 03/28/2006 7:15:09 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Islam Factoid:After forcing young girls to watch his men execute their fathers, Muhammad raped them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: right right
Trees put H2O into the air.

They also spew out oxygen, a highly reactive, unstable chemical that has found by scientists to be involved in uncontrolled high temperature chemical reactions which kill millions of women, children, and minorities every year.

31 posted on 03/28/2006 7:16:30 AM PST by Fresh Wind (Democrats are guilty of whatever they scream the loudest about.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Wait a second here. Every one knows the Sun's output, on average, is constant ... the scientists say so. There is no evidence the sun produces a variable output over the decades, right?

Every one knows total h20 vapor in the atmosphere at all elevations, on average, is constant ... the scientists say so. The global climate models boundary conditions assume this, because there is no evidence to prove otherwise.

Everyone knows that all other green house gases, on average, are negligable, except for CO2 ... the scientists say so.

The computer models, written by these scientists are very trustworthy too ... minimal assumptions, incredible amounts of field data for calibration purposes, robust math equations which have minimal fudge factors, boundary conditions which are unassailable. And the computers themselves are extremely intelligently designed.

Everyone knows that a huge pool of water, the ocean, holds a lot of heat, and has lots of currents going different directions at different depths. But the impact on the Carbon cycle, on average, is flat. Sez the good scientists anyway; despite how complicated all those funky currents are.

And, oh yes, salinity levels and how they change over time are very well understood as well, at all depths, and how those levels effect the heat exchange and currents between the ocean and atmosphere ... trivial, and on average, constant.

Everyone knows all this. So posting articles about how water vapor changes over time might impact climate, as a result of a comet like structure impacting the planet ... why, that is just plain deeply ignorant, stupid, and willfully dangerous to the health of this planet. Shame on you.

Everyone knows that man made carbon dioxide is the primary cause of the reality of global warming, for it just swamps all those other data points, which on average, are relatively constant. That is what those trust worthy scientists keep saying (and boy oh boy do they remind me in tone of how certain other brands of scientists defend a certain subject). Mankind is a virus on this planet, remember? Can't we just understand this ... and start developoing solutions to this virus??

Global warming is like gravity.

One of my office mates told me this just YESTERDAY. Why? Because the scientists said so ... they read about it in Time Magazine. And for sure, the people who run Time, and the NY Times, etc, etc ... why, they are really trust worthy. And boy oh boy do reporters just LOVE scientists!!

I know they, the scientists, reporters, and trial lawyers who are salivating at the idea of all those carbon emitting companies who are soon to be declared liable for attacking the planet, why, they ALL honestly care about you and me. It is heart warming.

If it wasn't for G. W. Bush, and all evil republicans, especially the religious variety, this problem and all other problems could be fixed, especially if Hillary gets elected.


32 posted on 03/28/2006 7:17:51 AM PST by gobucks (Blissful Marriage: A result of a worldly husband's transformation into the Word's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gritty
This whole Greenhouse gas thingy was so much more satisfying when we pretended we were saving the planet from destruction. Besides, we could mandate and spend spend trillions of dollars on bigger mufflers for smaller SUVs and the Kyoto Treaty and teaching our kids how to tell other people how uncaring and bad they are. Now we find out there's not much we can do about it anyway? This is a helpless feeling, not being in charge of our destiny but just being along for the ride. And all along we thought God was our copilot and we were the ones steering the ship and not Her? It appears our control stick and throttles were actually disconnected! Pathetic. Please pass the tofu!

A nicely written little parody. Started my morning with a good laugh.

33 posted on 03/28/2006 7:19:27 AM PST by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum; ArrogantBustard

How dare you both attempt to inject science fact and reason into this debate!!!


34 posted on 03/28/2006 7:32:52 AM PST by TC Rider (The United States Constitution © 1791. All Rights Reserved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: capt. norm
I speak from first-hand knowledge as I work with it every day. Alll attempts to emulate the water vapor cycle have failed, so far. Especially where clouds are concerned.

We're talking about two different things. I was not talking about clouds, and yes, they are an uncertainty factor. The positive water vapor feedback is simply that relative humidity will increase in a warmer climate. That's the main thing that they do in GCMs, and that's the main thing that's the topic when H20 as a greenhouse gas is being discussed.

Since you work with this every day, what impact did Minschwaner and Dessler's paper have on your work?

35 posted on 03/28/2006 8:06:33 AM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
Evidently you believe that global climate was static until the day you were born, and now it is suddenly changing.

I know it was. I can feel it!

36 posted on 03/28/2006 8:13:32 AM PST by Gritty (On behalf of red state America, let me be the first to say: ‘Screw you, Hollywood.’ – Ann Coulter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
There is no evidence the sun produces a variable output over the decades, right?

Incorrect. Read The role of the Sun in 20th century climate change

Every one knows total h20 vapor in the atmosphere at all elevations, on average, is constant ... the scientists say so.

Incorrect. Scientists know that relative humidity varies with average global temperature. This is called the positive water vapor feedback.

Everyone knows that all other green house gases, on average, are negligable, except for CO2 ... the scientists say so.

Incorrect. The contributions from more potent GHGs, like methane and CFCs, are accounted for. CO2, by virtue of its concentration in the atmosphere, has the most dominant effect on Earth's radiative balance.

The computer models, written by these scientists are very trustworthy too ... minimal assumptions, incredible amounts of field data for calibration purposes, robust math equations which have minimal fudge factors, boundary conditions which are unassailable.

Incorrect. This is why the output of various models, with different assumptions and framework, must be consulted when evaluating predictions of future climate change.

Everyone knows that a huge pool of water, the ocean, holds a lot of heat, and has lots of currents going different directions at different depths. But the impact on the Carbon cycle, on average, is flat. Sez the good scientists anyway; despite how complicated all those funky currents are.

It's hard to evaluate the point of this paragraph. Ocean-atmosphere carbon exchange has been well characterized by measurements of pCO2 taken over all the ocean basins. The oceans are a net sink for CO2.

And, oh yes, salinity levels and how they change over time are very well understood as well, at all depths, and how those levels effect the heat exchange and currents between the ocean and atmosphere ... trivial, and on average, constant.

Incorrect. The effects of changes in thermohaline balance have been a very fruitful area of study. Changes such as the Younger Dryas and the 8200 ya event have shown what happens to disruption of the THC.

Yes, I know you were being sarcastic. But you were so inaccurate that I had to make sure other people reading this realized it.

37 posted on 03/28/2006 8:16:29 AM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
The positive water vapor feedback is simply that relative humidity will increase in a warmer climate.

I'm sorry but you need to do a little more reading.

(1) Clouds are a KEY part of the water vapor cycle. That would be like leaving predators out of the food chain.

(2) Absolute humidity (not relative, which is temperature-weighted) increases in such places where moisture and heat are both abundant (tropics, for example).

This is my daily work and has been since the late 60's when we opened the WeatherLab at Panama City (FL). We study climate mechanisms first-hand and combine that with parallel studies of the Gulf of Mexico and the air-sea interactions that have a major affect on weather.

You are coming up with what looks like random stuff pulled out of scattered and dubious sources.

Please tell me what climate research you have done this week, month, year.....lifetime. I'm doing it today, as I have for the past 30-something years.

38 posted on 03/28/2006 8:22:15 AM PST by capt. norm (If you can't make a mistake, you can't make anything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
It's the relative rates of evaporation. You have "dry air" blowing over the land and "moist air" blowing over the ocean. The "dry air" will absorb more water than the "moist air" (given the same temperature, right?)

We can even estimate the temperature of the water being used, in general, for irrigation purposes, as well as how much of it is sprayed and so forth, and it turns into a simple mathematical exercise.

Irrigation could very well increase the amount of water evaporated into the air several percentage points.

So, you're the smart guy, give us the answers on this one.

39 posted on 03/28/2006 8:46:05 AM PST by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: gobucks

Should be possible to see how variable the Sun is by checking out the deposits on continental margins as the ocean level rises and falls ~ and not just the broad swaths that occur when Antarctica or North America melts ~ after all, even that happens in pulses.


40 posted on 03/28/2006 8:48:54 AM PST by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: randog
"Too many paychecks depend on the fossil-fuel-is-evil theory."

Like WMD, people think of weaponry that has a trigger or shaped like a bomb rather than Bio-Warfare. We tend to think of oil for cars, machinery etc. while forgetting how something like a zip-lock bag to childrens toys, to parts of cars or anything that is plastic - that is actually what we are addicted to. You can purchase several different oils for your car, lawn mowers etc. that are man made and very good. Packaging with plastic is really a problem as it is wasteful and costly.....and it takes barrels of oil to produce it.

41 posted on 03/28/2006 8:49:10 AM PST by yoe ("If the enemy is in range, so are you.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
So, you're the smart guy, give us the answers on this one.

Simple.

Belief in global-warming is faith-based science.

People who believe it don't need any facts, just the love and support of their fellow global-warming zealouts.

42 posted on 03/28/2006 8:56:05 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Islam Factoid:After forcing young girls to watch his men execute their fathers, Muhammad raped them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

I wonder if ABC news will pick up on this.........


43 posted on 03/28/2006 9:00:24 AM PST by lmailbvmbipfwedu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
There used to be a 2 mile high glacier in my backyard in Indianapolis.

It went away one day.

You telling me it didn't warm up?

44 posted on 03/28/2006 9:01:27 AM PST by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
There used to be a 2 mile high glacier in my backyard in Indianapolis.

It went away one day.

You telling me it didn't warm up?

45 posted on 03/28/2006 9:02:56 AM PST by muawiyah (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

I have one word for that action.

SPRINGTIME.


46 posted on 03/28/2006 9:10:14 AM PST by BlueStateDepression
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Well, clearly we're all going to have to stop drinking water and breathing, since that increases water vapor in the atmosphere.


47 posted on 03/28/2006 9:15:49 AM PST by TChris ("Wake up, America. This is serious." - Ben Stein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Irrigation could very well increase the amount of water evaporated into the air several percentage points. So, you're the smart guy, give us the answers on this one.

The short answer is that in irrigation (the part of it the works and isn't wasted) the water soaks into the ground and some of it is taken up by plants whereas over large open bodies of water there's nothing to slow it down.

Example: two thirds of the precipitation that falls east of the Rockies, comes from the Gulf of Mexico. It's a little over 66%.

Irrigation water evaporation on the other hand, has yet to reach the tenth of one percent range. It has about as much impact as an extra quart of water going over Niagara Falls.

We can even estimate the temperature of the water being used, in general, for irrigation purposes, as well as how much of it is sprayed and so forth, and it turns into a simple mathematical exercise.

It is definitely not as simple as that. You don't take into account the ambient air temperature, the dew point (which effects how much can be evaporated), how much of it is absorbed by the soil, winds, which can change the whole equation, the amount of insolation (sunlight) and dozens of other factors it would take too long to list.

If weather/climate research were as simple as you make it our to be, we'd already have our forecast for Easter 2020.

48 posted on 03/28/2006 9:17:55 AM PST by capt. norm (If you can't make a mistake, you can't make anything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: capt. norm; muawiyah
Evaporation is its own solution because under certain conditions water vapor turns reflective. Clouds and snow are white because they bounce back the full spectrum of light. They bounce sunlight back into space and bounce heat back towards Earth. If we manage evaporation, cause it to happen when conditions are right and suppress it when they are not, we can control the climate to be anything we want. If we create a canopy the climate below it cools forcing out the water. Most of the management would likely occur on the ocean surface. Scientists need to start developing these technologies rather than on leftist political solutions that are really anti-technologies.
49 posted on 03/28/2006 10:33:56 AM PST by Reeses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Reeses
There are many excellent facts in your post but the relationships are all askew. Piecing together what you have posted is going to require it to be organized into some kind of coherency.

*Or maybe it's just me "sigh".

50 posted on 03/28/2006 10:40:12 AM PST by capt. norm (If you can't make a mistake, you can't make anything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-75 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson