'Naysayers Guide to Global Warming.

[Devonian]

This is an interesting story from the BBC:BBC News Online

Elsewhere, Dr. McLeod is qouted as saying that the discovery ''might explain global warming''.

I'm posting this without comment - I'd be very interested to hear what others think.

Best wishes,

Mike.

Where is 'elsewhere'?

[Michael Winston]

Where is 'elsewhere'?

Sorry, Devonian. Metro News today.

Regards,

Mike.

[parmenides3]

Sorry, Devonian. Metro News today.

Regards,

Mike.

Winston: too vague; link? There are too many 'metro news' options.

First impression: can't see it, personally; it wouldn't explain the extra heat in the atmosphere.

:)P

[Michael Winston]

Winston: too vague; link? There are too many 'metro news' options.

First impression: can't see it, personally; it wouldn't explain the extra heat in the atmosphere.

P

The newspaper is Metro News, a free rag. (metro.co.uk). I've searched their site but there's no mention of the story, so I'll quote part of what was written in today's edition....

''Dr. Chris McLeod of Cardiff University said the 'startling discovery' might explain global warming. The normal process of 'seafloor spreading' had somehow gone wrong, he added.'' Try this link, although there's no mention of by Dr. McLeod of global warming in it:BBC News Online.

Like I say, I present this without comment, except to say that such a sweeping statement shouldn't slip through without peoples' attention being drawn to it.

Hope this is useful.

Kind regards,

Mike.

[Admiral_Bobski]

oh i see. See post 265

Ah, right - I wasn't sure if you were looking for my response to the ongoing "solar activity" debate! To answer your question, I'm not an alarmist or "The End of the World is Nigh" kind of guy, so I don't think that putting Sulphur (or a compund thereof) into the atmosphere would be the end of life as we know it or anything, although my post may have given that impression (I was just intrigued by the parallels!).

But there's a difference between saying "It's not that bad" and saying "it's a grand idea"! There's some argument about whether or not CO2 can be classed as a pollutant - the general view is that, while it is a "greenhouse gas", it is not a pollutant. Increasing CO2 concentrations may be detrimental in the long run (in large enough concentrations), but it doesn't pollute the atmosphere, not least because it is an essential component of the atmosphere.

Sulphur, on the other hand, is considered a pollutant (that lovely eggy smell caused by burping catalytic converters is sulphur-based). "Correcting" the effect of CO2, a non-pollutant, with Sulphur, which is a pollutant, doesn't seem like a remarkably good idea to me. Although it doesn't remain in the atmosphere for anything like as long as CO2, I wonder if all the potential knock-on effects have been adequately considered (acid rain, anyone?).

That's my thinking on the issue, but I am always open to counter-arguments. I hope this answers your question.

C-Bob

[DAVID SNOW]

Ah, right - I wasn't sure if you were looking for my response to the ongoing "solar activity" debate! To answer your question, I'm not an alarmist or "The End of the World is Nigh" kind of guy, so I don't think that putting Sulphur (or a compund thereof) into the atmosphere would be the end of life as we know it or anything, although my post may have given that impression (I was just intrigued by the parallels!).

But there's a difference between saying "It's not that bad" and saying "it's a grand idea"! There's some argument about whether or not CO2 can be classed as a pollutant - the general view is that, while it is a "greenhouse gas", it is not a pollutant. Increasing CO2 concentrations may be detrimental in the long run (in large enough concentrations), but it doesn't pollute the atmosphere, not least because it is an essential component of the atmosphere.

Sulphur, on the other hand, is considered a pollutant (that lovely eggy smell caused by burping catalytic converters is sulphur-based). "Correcting" the effect of CO2, a non-pollutant, with Sulphur, which is a pollutant, doesn't seem like a remarkably good idea to me. Although it doesn't remain in the atmosphere for anything like as long as CO2, I wonder if all the potential knock-on effects have been adequately considered (acid rain, anyone?).

That's my thinking on the issue, but I am always open to counter-arguments. I hope this answers your question.

C-Bob

Thanks for the reply,its interesting how you,we consider and label certain chemicals, compounds etc as being pollutants,i dont think the planet, or if you like mother nature considers any natural componant to be a pollutant, thats our take on things. I do agree though certain components may be harmful to our species, but we are just one of many species on the earth at this time and perhaps, what may do us harm could benefit some other species.When our time is up( self destruction or natural effects)some other species will evolve and maybe take our place at the top of the food chain, and you never know, they may even breath a sulphur polluted atmosphere.P.S.Yes acid rain would be a down side but that would also depend on how much sulphur compounds were introduced,also whether the end would justify the means.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Thanks for the reply,its interesting how you,we consider and label certain chemicals, compounds etc as being pollutants,i dont think the planet, or if you like mother nature considers any natural componant to be a pollutant, thats our take on things. I do agree though certain components may be harmful to our species, but we are just one of many species on the earth at this time and perhaps, what may do us harm could benefit some other species.When our time is up( self destruction or natural effects)some other species will evolve and maybe take our place at the top of the food chain, and you never know, they may even breath a sulphur polluted atmosphere.P.S.Yes acid rain would be a down side but that would also depend on how much sulphur compounds were introduced,also whether the end would justify the means.

It might be interesting to find out how much Sulphur is being considered as an "antidote" to CO2. My labelling of Sulphur as a pollutant stems mainly from the fact that its presence in the atmosphere is, by volume, is tiny. Here's the main chemical composition of our atmosphere:

Nitrogen 78.1%

Oxygen 20.9%

Argon 0.9%

Neon 0.002%

Helium 0.0005%

Krypton 0.0001%

Hydrogen 0.00005%

Water vapor 0 to 4%

Carbon Dioxide 0.035%

Methane 0.0002%

Ozone 0.000004%

(Figures taken from http://www.met.fsu.edu/explores/atmcomp.html)

Sulphur doesn't even make a guest appearance in these figures, meaning that it must constitute less than 0.000004% (that's four millionths of one percent) of the total (any trace amounts would, presumably, come from such phenomena as volcanic eruptions, and would quickly dissipate).

Since sulphur doesn't have a significant natural presence in the standard composition of the atmosphere then I would consider it a pollutant. Anything on the list above I would consider not to be a pollutant.

That's my take on it anyway

C-Bob

EDIT - edited to amend typo(s)!

Edited March 2, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[Hiya]

It might be interesting to find out how much Sulphur is being considered as an "antidote" to CO2. My labelling of Sulphur as a pollutant stems mainly from the fact that its presence in the atmosphere is, by volume, is tiny. Here's the main chemical composition of our atmosphere:

Nitrogen 78.1%

Oxygen 20.9%

Argon 0.9%

Neon 0.002%

Helium 0.0005%

Krypton 0.0001%

Hydrogen 0.00005%

Water vapor 0 to 4%

Carbon Dioxide 0.035%

Methane 0.0002%

Ozone 0.000004%

(Figures taken from http://www.met.fsu.edu/explores/atmcomp.html)

Sulphur doesn't even make a guest appearance in these figures, meaning that it must constitute less than 0.000004% (that's four millionths of one percent) of the total (any trace amounts would, presumably, come from such phenomena as volcanic eruptions, and would quickly dissipate).

Since sulphur doesn't have a significant natural presence in the standard composition of the atmosphere then I would consider it a pollutant. Anything on the list above I would consider not to be a pollutant.

That's my take on it anyway

C-Bob

EDIT - edited to amend typo(s)!

You are absolutely right about sulphur compounds being a pollutant.

Humans releasing sulphur compounds into the atmosphere would cause far more damage than good:

- Acid rain

- uncontrollable seeding of clouds

- Destruction of ozone

- considering the amount that would need to be used, to make it effective we'd need to lace it with a catalyst, which happens to be nitrogen oxides, which also cause destruction of ozone and acid rain!

I'd hazard to say that the "antidote" quantity of sulphur dioxide would cause more harm than the CO2. The "antidote" is the removal of the carbon dioxide we put into the atmosphere, or the complete seizure of its release, which is nay impossible. cf http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?s...st&p=935694 for an idea.

[VillagePlank]

Just an idea. Can't we invent CO2 scrubbers? Things that pull air in, and pump it out minus CO2 put their by man? Is this chemically feasible? Will it produce more CO2 than it cleans? Sounds a childish idea, but I'd like to hear the chemistry behind it . . .

[DAVID SNOW]

It might be interesting to find out how much Sulphur is being considered as an "antidote" to CO2. My labelling of Sulphur as a pollutant stems mainly from the fact that its presence in the atmosphere is, by volume, is tiny. Here's the main chemical composition of our atmosphere:

Nitrogen 78.1%

Oxygen 20.9%

Argon 0.9%

Neon 0.002%

Helium 0.0005%

Krypton 0.0001%

Hydrogen 0.00005%

Water vapor 0 to 4%

Carbon Dioxide 0.035%

Methane 0.0002%

Ozone 0.000004%

(Figures taken from http://www.met.fsu.edu/explores/atmcomp.html)

Sulphur doesn't even make a guest appearance in these figures, meaning that it must constitute less than 0.000004% (that's four millionths of one percent) of the total (any trace amounts would, presumably, come from such phenomena as volcanic eruptions, and would quickly dissipate).

Since sulphur doesn't have a significant natural presence in the standard composition of the atmosphere then I would consider it a pollutant. Anything on the list above I would consider not to be a pollutant.

That's my take on it anyway

C-Bob

EDIT - edited to amend typo(s)!

Sorry do not agree, if there was an eruption tomorrow that introduced a lot more sulphur into the atmosphere than there is today, would that not change the composition of the atmosphere NATURALY.You mention standard composition,how do you know that todays atmosphere is standard?It has changed composition many times in earths history, and by that token todays atmosphere may not be the standard. Or do you call it standard because it suits us?So sorry to repeat myself but i cant see how a natural volcanic event that produces natural compounds be polluting the atmosphere,changing it, yes. I think volcanism has played a large part in evolution,and without it things would be very different today

[Mondy]

Interesting TV alert. Mondy's dream has come true; next Thursday, Channel 4, 9.00pm: 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'. Should be fun.

Reminder to people - it's TV, therefore the media, therefore treat all information with caution. I might even do a review of it...

:)P

In The Great Global Warming Swindle, an upcoming documentary to be broadcast on Channel 4, man-made climate change is called “a lie ... the biggest scam of modern times”. He continued, “The truth is that global warming is a multibillion-dollar worldwide industry: created by fanatically anti-industrial environmentalists; supported by scientists peddling scare stories to chase funding; and propped up by complicit politicians and the media ... The fact is that CO2 has no proven link to global temperatures ... solar activity is far more likely to be the culprit.”

http://www.varsity.co.uk/news/124/2/

However, Martin Durkin does have "history"

In 1997 the director, Martin Durkin, produced a similar series for Channel 4 called Against Nature, which also maintained that global warming was a scam dreamed up by environmentalists. It was riddled with hilarious scientific howlers. More damagingly, the only way in which Durkin could sustain his thesis was to deceive the people he interviewed and edit their answers to change their meaning. After complaints by his interviewees, the Independent Television Commission found that "the views of the four complainants, as made clear to the interviewer, had been distorted by selective editing" and that they had been "misled as to the content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part". Channel 4 was obliged to broadcast one of the most humiliating primetime apologies it has made. Are institutional memories really so short?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/st...2001694,00.html

So worth watching all the same.

[Mondy]

I mentioned this guy yesterday, David Hathaway. He's the chap who's NASA sun expert. This interview is from Jan 13 2007. There is reference to Global Warming in the interview. See what you make of it.

A lot of it blows my theory out of water, but i'm man enough to show you! lol

Interesting all the same.

Interview:

David Hathaway, Ph. D., Solar Physics Team Leader, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama: “We haven’t seen the first spot of the new cycle, but we’ve seen indications that new cycle spots are getting ready to form. One looked like it was a spot, but it appeared while it was on the backside of the sun, the far side of the sun, and by the time it rotated around to our side, the spot had disappeared, but it’s magnetic remains were still there. So, it does look like the new cycle is starting, but we’re still waiting to see the first spot that is unquestionably a spot for the new cycle. Geomagnetic disturbances in the last two or three years tell us that the next cycle ought to be a big cycle - one of the largest on record.

HOW WILL YOU KNOW? WHAT DO YOU LOOK FOR?

Two things we look for:

1) One is the magnetic polarity. The magnetic polarities flip from one cycle to the next. And from one hemisphere to the other. So, we should see that the magnetic polarities are flipped: north to south and south to north. But we’ve already seen some of those.

2) The other key ingredient is that it needs to be a spot at a fairly high latitude, usually above 25 degrees. Sometimes there are first spots of the new cycle that appear as low as 20 degrees, but all the reverse polarity spots we’ve seen thus far have been low latitude. In fact there is one on the sun today that’s at about 3 degrees and that’s far too low for it to be a spot related to the next cycle.

Confusing Sun Signals

WHAT DO YOU EXPECT, BASED ON HISTORIC DATA, FOR HOW THIS SOLAR MAXIMUM WILL UNFOLD?

It’s a little confusing this time around, actually. We haven’t had this problem before, but there are a number of indicators we can look at related to sunspots and solar activity that give us an idea ahead of time about how big the cycle is going to be. Indicators (of big solar maximums) that have agreed and worked in the past don’t agree this time.

One thing we look at is geomagnetic activity – this is shaking of the Earth’s magnetic field, which is caused by two different things on the sun. One, is flaring activity and what we call coronal mass ejections (CMEs) – these huge clouds of material that are blasted off of the sun at more than a million miles an hour. If they travel through the solar system and hit the Earth, they are stopped by our magnetic field and the CMEs shakes our magnetic field and we can see that on the ground. We have seen those variations in the Earth’s magnetic field for more than 150 years now.

Another source is high-speed wind coming off of the sun. What we found in the past is that the level of that activity one or two years before the Solar Minimum is a good indicator of how big the next cycle is going to be. It’s as if the sun is already building up its magnetic fields and starting to let loose with things early on. That activity says the next Solar Max Cycle 24 is going to be big.

But another thing we look at is how strong the magnetic fields are at the poles of the sun. This time around – and we’ve only been able to do that for the last 30 years, so we only have three cycles of that. But those fields have been very weak this time. The poles on the sun are very weak now. That suggests that the next Solar Max cycle is going to be small.

Space Weather Models Predict Big Solar Cycle 24

The one new tool we have this time around are models, much like meteorologists have for predicting weather on the Earth. We now have models for how the sun makes magnetic fields, makes sunspots in the sunspot cycle. Those models are telling us that this next coming cycle is going to be big.

So, we’ve got a bit of a problem this time trying to sort out why in particular the sun’s magnetic fields are staying weak and say Solar Max Cycle 24 will be small and quiet, while other data are indicating it’s going to be a big Cycle 24. We need to sort that out as scientists within the next few months, hopefully, before the cycle gets started. There are people who really need to know how big this next cycle is going to be.

BECAUSE?

Because of its influence on all of our stuff in space. So satellites in space are influenced by solar activity. Their orbits, how long they stay up. For the ones in lower Earth orbit, there is enough of the Earth’s atmosphere up there that they slowly spiral in. If we have a big solar cycle, it heats up the Earth’s outermost atmosphere and makes it puff up a bit. So, those satellites will de-orbit, or come down, quicker than normal. So, people who have spent millions and billions of dollars putting those satellites up there are very concerned about how big the next cycle is going to be.

The size of the next Solar Max also influences communications here on the ground – from long-range radio communications to telephones, particularly cell phone systems that use satellites. GPS (global positioning) uses satellites. All of those are influenced by how big the next Solar Max cycle is.

Could Solar Cycle 24 Be Strongest in 400 Years?

IN YOUR DECEMBER 21ST NASA ARTICLE, IT SAYS THIS COULD BE THE STRONGEST SOLAR MAXIMUM IN 400 YEARS OF RECORD KEEPING. IF THAT TURNS OUT TO BE THE CASE, WHAT ARE THE WORST THINGS THAT CAN HAPPEN?

Worst thing that can happen is that we would loose some satellites prematurely. There are problems for astronauts in space. In fact, the flares that occurred a week or two or go were enough to impact the outside activity by astronauts at the International Space Station (ISS). It can influence airline flights here on the Earth and in particular, polar flights that go over the Earth’s poles. They can be without communications during big events and big cycles. So, those planes have to take longer routes at more expense to get from Europe to the Americas, for instance.

IN A STRONG SOLAR MAXIMUM, IF IT IS SO STRONG, WHAT WOULD YOU EXPECT TO BE HAPPENING?

We’d see many more flares, more CMEs. Here on Earth, we would see more auroras, displays of the Northern Lights that are caused by solar eruptions messing around with the Earth’s magnetic fields. There could be communication outages. There could even be electrical outages. CMEs shaking the Earth’s magnetic field can cause a surge of electricity through power lines. We had a big outage back in March of 1989, which took out power to the Province of Quebec. Some people were without power for six days. It literally fried a transformer in New Jersey that cost $10 million. There are a number of things like that, which can happen during times of extreme solar activity.

X-Flares

WHAT IS THE LARGEST X-FLARE REPORTED SO FAR?

The largest was during this current solar minimum cycle. It went off our charts. We had been measuring the x-rays from the sun in flares using NOAA’s weather satellites for about 30 years now. There was one within the last three or four years that - our most energetic class of solar flares are called ‘X-Class flares.’ They are usually X-1 through X-10. We didn’t have a class higher than that. But this one was pegged at an X-20 or something like that. It basically went off the scale and we need a letter after X like a Y or something like that to describe these! It was more than ten times bigger than most X-Class flares.

Now that we’ve had a flare that was ten times bigger than the normal X-Class flare, the best we could do was say it’s an X-15 or X-20 or something like that. That describes the energy in the flare.

DO YOU THINK THERE COULD POSSIBLY BE A LOT OF X-20S BETWEEN NOW AND 2012 IF YOUR PREDICTIONS ARE CORRECT?

I wouldn’t say a lot of the X-20s, but certainly if it’s going to be a big cycle, we’ll see a lot of X-Class flares. That’s been our experience in the past. As the number of sunspots increase, the number of flares increase as well, along with the size of them. The size – because you get more of them, there are more X-Class flares in the mix. But as we’ve seen recently, you can still get X-Class flares even when we’re down to one or two sunspots on the sun.

IF THERE WERE A LOT OF X-FLARES IN A REALLY INTENSE SOLAR MAXIMUM, HOW OFTEN WOULD THEY OCCUR, DO YOU THINK?

During an intense solar maximum, you have many X-Class flares per month. But near solar minimum, we can go many months or even years without an X-Class flare. So at solar maximum, there are several per month we would see.

IF THERE ARE SEVERAL PER MONTH AND WE HAVE ALL THE SATELLITES, THEN IT DOES BECOME A CRITICAL PROBLEM.

Yes, because one big flare if the situation is right can destroy electronic elements on satellites. Also, just the number of sunspots accumulated in the cycle is enough that the Earth’s upper atmosphere puffs out and causes some satellites to slowly spiral in. There will be more satellite outages and the services those satellites provide will be interrupted because of it.

That’s why we need to get the prediction better. What can be done is when you launch a satellite, if you’re launching a satellite now, you would launch it into a higher altitude orbit so it can stay up longer and you would add more radiation hardening to its components to protect it as well.

On the other hand, if it’s not going to be a big cycle, then you don’t need to spend the millions of dollars involved in doing that. Again, as far as the satellite industry is concerned, knowing how big the next solar max cycle is going to be is critical. It costs them money either way if the predictions are wrong.

Puzzle of Weak Magnetic Solar Poles

HAS THERE EVER BEEN THIS CONFUSION BEFORE ABOUT THE WEAK MAGNETIC POLES VERSUS YOUR OTHER INDICATORS?

No, and that’s why we’re in a bit of quandary now and why many scientists that are actively trying to get to the bottom of it. For the last two cycles, at least, where we’ve had panels come together to look at the different predictions and different techniques, the techniques that we’ve found to be reliable – and two of these are the geomagnetic precursors, things that come before the cycle starts – and the polar magnetic fields. Those have agreed fairly well the last two times. But this time, they disagree. We need to understand why. The sun’s telling us something and we’ve got to figure it out.

Four Biggest Solar Cycles Since 1950s -

Any Connection to Global Warming?

IT APPEARS THAT AT LEAST FOUR OF THE BIGGEST SOLAR CYCLES HAVE ALL COME IN THE LAST 50 YEARS. WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT MEANS?

It means the sun has been very active. There have been researchers that have suggested that the sun has been more active now than it’s been in thousands of years.

IN THAT ACTIVITY, IS THERE AN INCREASE IN SOLAR ENERGY THAT COULD EXPLAIN GLOBAL WARMING AND EVEN HEATING ON MARS?

Certainly, there is a correlation between solar activity and surface temperature on Earth. Most scientist agree there is a connection between the two, but it looks like the sun can only be responsible for a fraction of the warming we’re seeing and cannot be – the recent rise in global average temperature cannot be attributed to solar activity.

But as you said, the biggest solar cycles on record have been the last few. That has contributed some to the global warming problem.

IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT THE ENERGY FROM THE SUN HAS BEEN INCREASING?

The energy output has. It seems a little contradictory, but when we have active cycles and lots of sunspots – although the sunspots are dark, all the other activity makes the sun brighter. So, the sun is brighter during big solar cycles than it is during small cycles and it is brighter at solar maximum than it is at solar minimum.

IS THERE A DIRECT ASSOCIATION BETWEEN BRIGHTNESS AND THE ENERGY THAT REACHES THE EARTH AND HEATS IT?

Yes, there is. But again, the direct heating from the brightness of the sun is only about one-tenth of one percent, so it’s a small change. The people who model the Earth’s climate, when they add that in there – 1/10th% change in brightness over a ten year period – they have a hard time reproducing the temperature changes that are seen, other than noting when the sun has been active in periods of activity like we are now, surface temperature (of the Earth) seems to be warmer.

[ Editor's Note: A 2006 study and review of existing literature, published in Nature, determined that there has been no net increase in brightness since the mid- 1970s, and that changes in solar output within the past 400 years are unlikely to have played a major part in global warming.]

HOW LONG DO YOU THINK IT’S GOING TO BE BEFORE YOU REALLY KNOW HOW BIG THIS MAXIMUM MIGHT BE?

I would say within the next two years we will know. Or sooner than that. The next cycle has been slow in starting. We haven’t seen the official first spot of a new cycle, although we’ve seen indicators that there might have been new cycle spots on the backside of the sun, but by the time the sun rotated around the spots, they disappeared and left behind their magnetic remains.

But once a Solar Max cycle gets started, how fast it starts rising, how fast it starts making more and more sunspots, is a very good indicator of how big the cycle is going to be. So we should know within two or three years how big this next cycle is going to be. It ought to reach a maximum in 2011."

http://earthfiles.com/news/news.cfm?ID=119...ategory=Science

[HighPressure]

Well I have no great knowledge of Chemistry and it probably shows, but my point put simply: Does the reduction in both natural volcanic sulphur and man made emissions over the past 30yrs distort the IPCC projections? Especially when added to any possible underestimated solar effect? I do not suggest that pumping Sulphur into the atmosphere is a good idea but I do suggest that global sulphur levels will increase naturally and that solar activity will decrease leading to a cooling period. This I think will slow global warming to @2oC by 2100, by which time I expect CO2 emissions to be well down on today's levels.

There I have said it, is that complete Bunkem from a scientific illiterate?

[Hiya]

Just an idea. Can't we invent CO2 scrubbers? Things that pull air in, and pump it out minus CO2 put their by man? Is this chemically feasible? Will it produce more CO2 than it cleans? Sounds a childish idea, but I'd like to hear the chemistry behind it . . .

to quote myself from another thread:

I don't know if there is currently a catalyst that exists that even comes close to fitting the bill that is required.

What you need is a solid catalyst, that when you pass room temperature air mixture over converts CO2 into O2 and C, oxygen no problem can be added to the air mixture, solid C more of a problem, it will coat you catalyst in seconds, so you'd need some sort of tumble bed. Then obviously you can store solid carbon where ever you like.

Then you need to make this work on an industrial scale, possibly with a condenser since rather conveniently CO2 is the first thing in an air mixture to solidify, and have some plants to run constantly. Then make it work on a small scale and add it to every CO2 exhaust outlet by law.

I'd be very surprised if there isn't a few research labs looking for this wonder catalyst already. Big, BIG money involved.

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

I found this: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2620 but that is more recycling CO2 than getting rid of it.

Well I have no great knowledge of Chemistry and it probably shows, but my point put simply: Does the reduction in both natural volcanic sulphur and man made emissions over the past 30yrs distort the IPCC projections? Especially when added to any possible underestimated solar effect? I do not suggest that pumping Sulphur into the atmosphere is a good idea but I do suggest that global sulphur levels will increase naturally and that solar activity will decrease leading to a cooling period. This I think will slow global warming to @2oC by 2100, by which time I expect CO2 emissions to be well down on today's levels.

There I have said it, is that complete Bunkem from a scientific illiterate?

Yes if sulphate levels increased and solar activity decreased then we could speculate that it would result in a cooling trend. Do you think the natural sulphur to come from volcanos?

[Admiral_Bobski]

Sorry do not agree, if there was an eruption tomorrow that introduced a lot more sulphur into the atmosphere than there is today, would that not change the composition of the atmosphere NATURALY.You mention standard composition,how do you know that todays atmosphere is standard?It has changed composition many times in earths history, and by that token todays atmosphere may not be the standard. Or do you call it standard because it suits us?So sorry to repeat myself but i cant see how a natural volcanic event that produces natural compounds be polluting the atmosphere,changing it, yes. I think volcanism has played a large part in evolution,and without it things would be very different today

Just because something is natural doesn't mean it isn't a pollutant. Uranium ore is naturally radioactive, but if it fell into a river then that river would be contaminated, or polluted. Here's a dictionary definition (taken from dictionary.com):

pollution:The contamination of air, water, or soil by substances that are harmful to living organisms.Pollution can occur naturally, for example through volcanic eruptions, or as the result of human activities, such as the spilling of oil or disposal of industrial waste.

C-Bob

EDIT - In response to VP and Hiya, starting with a quote from VP:

Just an idea. Can't we invent CO2 scrubbers? Things that pull air in, and pump it out minus CO2 put their by man? Is this chemically feasible? Will it produce more CO2 than it cleans? Sounds a childish idea, but I'd like to hear the chemistry behind it . . .

There is already such a thing as CO2 scrubbers - those are the things in Apollo 13, the Lithium Hydroxide canisters, which they had to convert to make "a round peg fit into a square hole". The catalyst for the reaction is granular Lithium Hydroxide, which removes CO2 by making Lithium Carbonate and Water. More details can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_hydroxide

Lithium Hydroxide is made by passing Lithium through water - why not convert the oceans?! (Joke!)

C-Bob

Edited March 2, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[Michael Winston]

I mentioned this guy yesterday, David Hathaway. He's the chap who's NASA sun expert. This interview is from Jan 13 2007. There is reference to Global Warming in the interview. See what you make of it.

A lot of it blows my theory out of water, but i'm man enough to show you! lol

Interesting all the same.

http://earthfiles.com/news/news.cfm?ID=119...ategory=Science

Interestingly, there's an article here

from the BBC about stereo imaging satellites launched by NASA to track solar 'fronts' as they approach the Earth.

Regards,

Mike.

Edit: Apologies if this is old hat!

Edited March 2, 2007 by Winston

[DAVID SNOW]

Just because something is natural doesn't mean it isn't a pollutant. Uranium ore is naturally radioactive, but if it fell into a river then that river would be contaminated, or polluted. Here's a dictionary definition (taken from dictionary.com):

pollution:The contamination of air, water, or soil by substances that are harmful to living organisms.Pollution can occur naturally, for example through volcanic eruptions, or as the result of human activities, such as the spilling of oil or disposal of industrial waste.

:)ok but if we were just considering the effects of an ammount of sulpher released from a volcano, this i would say would benefit the earth (climate)and imho not be considered a pollutant.

C-Bob

EDIT - In response to VP and Hiya, starting with a quote from VP:

There is already such a thing as CO2 scrubbers - those are the things in Apollo 13, the Lithium Hydroxide canisters, which they had to convert to make "a round peg fit into a square hole". The catalyst for the reaction is granular Lithium Hydroxide, which removes CO2 by making Lithium Carbonate and Water. More details can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_hydroxide

Lithium Hydroxide is made by passing Lithium through water - why not convert the oceans?! (Joke!)

C-Bob

[Hiya]

EDIT - In response to VP and Hiya, starting with a quote from VP:

There is already such a thing as CO2 scrubbers - those are the things in Apollo 13, the Lithium Hydroxide canisters, which they had to convert to make "a round peg fit into a square hole". The catalyst for the reaction is granular Lithium Hydroxide, which removes CO2 by making Lithium Carbonate and Water. More details can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_hydroxide

Lithium Hydroxide is made by passing Lithium through water - why not convert the oceans?! (Joke!)

C-Bob

I didn't know about that, but it isn't suitable for the mass removal of carbon dioxide since its a stoichometric reagent, not a catalyst.

[Admiral_Bobski]

I didn't know about that, but it isn't suitable for the mass removal of carbon dioxide since its a stoichometric reagent, not a catalyst.

Doh! Sorry - forgetting my basic chemistry again. A catalyst remains unaltered in a chemical reaction, doesn't it? Oops! My only excuse is that I've been up to my neck in fixing my car all day, which does my head in!

C-Bob

[HighPressure]

Yes if sulphate levels increased and solar activity decreased then we could speculate that it would result in a cooling trend. Do you think the natural sulphur to come from volcanos?

I think to introduce the natural occurrence of sulphur as a pollutant in this discussion does not really forward the debate, its hair spitting in my view even if technically correct. I am still learning and reading but to answer your question, Yes Volcanic activity but also expect more oceanic algal sulphur as the sea temps rise and ice shelves melt (no I don't think they will go altogether), I definitely see nature putting the breaks on. The question is then how significant is man's CO2 emissions, I don't think anyone knows although I respect all views. However it seems common sense for human's to stay as neutral as possible with emissions and therefore would surmise that later in this century man will be emitting far less CO2 due to technological advances. We may never actually find out the answer in whether man has significantly altered the climate balance as to understand that we would first need to know what the natural balance for the climate was at any one time or what the climate would have been in 2100 if we weren't here?

I am still learning so happy to listen to those far more educated than me

[Mondy]

Coldest summer in 14 years - New Zealand

[Gray-Wolf]

Coldest summer in 14 years - New Zealand

I've been watching the cold water anomalies flow up from Ross sea and rise up the sub-suface mountains/ridges that are N.Z. The 'flow' then moved to the north and appeared to overturn the 'El-Nino' warm pool off meso-america. Of course watching it and having it reported are two different things (I can only believe my eyes, scientists, their 'projections').

In the fullness of time 'science' will catch up (I feel Sure) and the 'outflow' from the Ross Sea will become more of a feature as more Ice streams/ice lakes drain out under the Ross Ice Shelf (at the McMurdo end of the 'Bay') out into the Southern Oceans. Though 'cooling' it is a 'warming effect'.

[acbrixton]

Coldest summer in 14 years - New Zealand

Mondy thank you for posting the link but what point were you trying to make?

Regards

ACB

[Mondy]

Hi ACB.

Purely to show in this era of 'Global Warming' and all sorts of warming records being broken, not least in the UK, it goes to show that not everywhere in the world is warming.

So with NZ claiming to have its coldest summer in 14 years, not all the globe is warming

[Essan]

Just an idea. Can't we invent CO2 scrubbers? Things that pull air in, and pump it out minus CO2 put their by man? Is this chemically feasible? Will it produce more CO2 than it cleans? Sounds a childish idea, but I'd like to hear the chemistry behind it . . .

We already have them. They're called trees. But they need to be planted inn tropical regions to be effective.

Guess where there's been mass deforestation over the past 50 years? Guess where it's continuing at this very moment. Guess how Indonesia manages to produce 10% of the world's carbon emissions?

Why are we only now starting to properly research the impact the loss of the world's tropical rain forests have on global climate?

So with NZ claiming to have its coldest summer in 14 years, not all the globe is warming

Which is exactly what we'd expect with climate change. After all, during some parts of the last ice age, some places were warmer in summer than they are today ......