Saturday, June 02, 2007

Anti-global warming open thread

Here's a thread for anyone out there who thinks that either:
a) Anthropogenic global warming does not exist.
b) It isn't worth doing anything about.
Post your best arguments here, in a blog that actual scientists* actually read!

*Soft rockers, too.


Steven Craig said...

Chuck, Science missed something extremely Cool (literally)

With a thousand theories rolling around about global warning, I noticed something that science had long ago revealed but never noticed, and it is so bone cracking cold it will drastically change our understanding of Global Warming:

Science has known for many years that the oxygen in our air gets there through plants photosynthesizing water with solar energy. They do this to separate the hydrogen from the water to cook with carbon to make carbo-hydrates, (plant food).

They also know that plants get their carbon from CO2 in our air, that is a waste product of our bodies and everything else that also burns organic fuels.

They also know that all plants need very little of the oxygen left over from the H20, without the H, so they just release it into our atmosphere.

Engineers know that nature’s only one step rapid cooling method is ‘Expansion’.

I have not seen any scientific explanation of global warming that ALSO accounts for the fact that every single atom of oxygen released by photosynthesis also expands about 800 times, which is roughly the difference in weight between water and air at sea level.

That canned gas we use to clean our keyboards and electronics with, can frostbite after only expanding several hundred times. So there is no doubt that this massive expansion occurs because the oxygen was part of tightly compressed water molecules, so it always massively expands when Photosynthesis reverts it back into a gas.

Most scientists seem to be blaming today's very high levels of C02 for holding far more heat in the atmosphere, so it seems logical that fossil fuels must be the cause.

But over the last hundred and fifty or so years, according to NASA web sites, humans have mowed down around 80% of earth’s heaviest atmospheric vegetation, so it is no longer around to eat nearly as much C02, as it used too, so naturally the levels it will greatly increase.

The natural method that earth uses to inhale that pollutant (C02) has been massively reduced.

Now add my bone cracking cold observation about what Photosynthesis exhales, to what it inhales and it is obvious (to common sense) that earth is warming up like an iced tea sitting on a table in the hot sun, because we cut down earth's air cooling and cleaning systems.

No theories needed.

Some scientists will say “Its more complicated then that”, since that saves them from explaining how they could have missed the fact that every atom of oxygen naturally released into our world's atmosphere is bone cracking cold.

It is standard procedure for science to deny the super obvious things they miss.

For 50 after some Europeans discovered that infections were caused by contamination, the American Medical Society refused to believe that American surgeons also needed to wash their hands before surgery, (afterward was good). They would have looked stupid for not realizing something so basic first, had they agreed. So with their standard denial they became super stupid.

Science is debating if a space shade umbrella is possible in the next thirty or so years, when all we need to do is to irrigate earth’s hottest deserts with the fresh water our large rivers just dump into our salty oceans, use desalinization, and trap the fresh water just melting from huge ice bergs into the salty seas.

If mankind can pipe huge amounts of oil thousands of miles across frozen mountains and tundra, irrigating hot deserts that are already under seal level should be a peace of cake. We could even use long hoses and the siphon effect.

Turning even some of earth’s hottest spots into cooler paradises would not only be much faster and cheaper then a space umbrella, it would provide the world with an economic bonanza, millions of tons of food, new inhabitable lands for exploding populations and much more.

Planting forests is using 40,000 year old technology, we don't even know if the space umbrella can stand up to the solar winds.

I won’t even start on how great reclaiming earth's wastelands would be for endangered species or how it would help to lower our ocean's raising tides.

Steven Craig © 2007 Steven Craig

Jul said...

George W. Bush told me to ignore the environment, and it is our duty as Americans to do what he says. If there was a problem, I'm sure this smrt, capable leader would tell us about it. So there.

Dr. Lemming said...

So Steven,
How do you design an experiment to quantify that effect?

Steven Craig said...

Hi Doctor.

Correct me if I'm wrong but would not The effect of expansion always thin the heat ratio volume, unless another heat source was introduced?

Because water is about 82% oxygen by weight (with half the atoms, its expansion to gas would be simpler to the expansion of water vapor from evaporation or transportation, minus the 18% for the hydrogen removed in the process.

Because Photosynthesis is a process that releases O as a gas, yet it began the process as a liquid, the expansion rate (based on water at seal level being about 800 times heaver then air) would invocate an expansion of 688 times.

I floated a full can of shaving cream in my hot tub for several hours. The tub was 105 degrees (f).
I rapidly emptied the cream in a box and took it's tempreture. It was 71 degrees, yet it had been 105 for several hours.

I crudely estimated a 20-40 times expansion of volume. So even with rough estimates an expansion rate of 500 to 1000 times would have too absorb existing heat simply to balance temperatures.

I have had many people claiming to be scientists claiming that no such expansion happens, but none explained why with any verifiable way, but most importaintly non offered a similar reason other then three callt Photosynthesis a chemical reaction.

But if sense mater goes into any reaction, and it is not burned or consumed, yet is released in a volume that is 688 times lighter, then how it arrived, do you agree it has to massively expand or we just discovered totally vanishing matter?

I have had no one deny that evaporation massively expands, and vapor is 82% O2.

If your question pertained to How I concluded the loss of over 50% of this cold expansion in the atmosphere is that I read from NASA web sites that since the industral age began, humans have remover about 80% of earth's thickest atmospheric vegestation.
Thus a massive loss of maybe Earth's moat efficient cooling, because unlike the W vapor, the O2 will not condense at any temp on earth, thus all of its expanded coolness will cancel atmospheric heat.

I think that CO2 alonw is only part of the problem, but it is remarkable the the same natural device that inhales CO2 also breathes out massive cold expansion.
I did have someone point out that the plants compress the CO2 which would concentrate heat, however Does' not the plants simply snag the carbon and then release the rest of the O2 that was attached to it?

C W Magee said...

Dear Steven,
for most chemical reactions, the chemical energy released or consumed is much greater than the thermodynamic heat loss or gain associated with volume increase or loss. For example, fire crackers and other explosives generate enough chemical heat to more than compensate for their large factors of expansion.

In the case of the Earth's surface temperature, however, both of these effects are insignificant compared to the heat from the sun, and the radiative heat loss into space. This is why the insulating properties of CO2 are more significant than the heat released by combustion.