Engineering News

Wow. Scaremongering about faux greenhouse-gas induced global warming is so 2006.

Try telling that to the UN

It could get hotter, or it could get cooler, we're not really sure....It might just stay the same....

What are they going to do about these things?

72+26+9+7 = 113%; no wonder it's getting warmer!

Btw, it's CO₂ rather than CO². --Ed. C.

Sorry those should have been posted in a range, they are all at the top of their range here, well anyway you get the idea, it's an approximation of these figures...I personally think it's possible that it's getting hotter from loss of the ozone layer, brought about by high altitude nuclear weapon testing...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_nuclear_explosion

http://www.atomcentral.com/nukes-in-space.aspx

http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2006/03/emp-radiation-from-nuclear-space.html

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/docs1/00322994.pdf

HOLE IN THE OZONE LAYER AFTER TEAK AND ORANGE?

-.

.

In late 1957 and early 1958, the question was raised as to whether or not the ultraviolet

emissions from the Teak and Orange events would "burn a hole" into the natural ozone layer.

The pre-event discussions" were inconclusive, It was recognized that the ultraviolet radiation

in the photon energy range from 4 to 6.5 eV (-3 000 A to 2000 ~) would be absorbed by 0s,

leading to dissociation; however, absorption of still shorter uv radiation in the range from 6.5

to 11 eV (-2 000 ~ to 1000 ~) in the Schumann-Runge continuum would lead to dissociation

of Oz and subsequent formation of ozone. The general feeling was that destruction and formation

would balance each other. This feeling was strengthened by the fact96 that significant

amounts of ozone are produced in sea-level explosions. Furthermore, it was argued that even

in case of complete destruction of the ozone layer over an area with radius 50 km, the ozone

loss would amount to only 2 x 10-' of the global inventory. The "hole" would be closed

promptly by bomb-produced turbulence and ambient motions in the atmosphere.

After the events, little attention was paid to this particular problem, evidently because no

spectacular or unusual observations were made (because of lack of evidence one way or the

other). A recent re-inspection of spectra taken by NRL with quartz optics showed, for both

Teak and Orange, the usual cutoff near 3000 ~.

After the event, the Teak fireball uv outputs were calculated at LASL by Skumanich, using

the best air opacities available at that time. The calculations show that, during the main

radiative phase, about equal amounts of thermal energy would be captured by ozone and by

the Schumann-Runge continuum of 02. However, the ozone-destroying process and the ozone

formation by dissociated molecular oxygen have different altitude dependence. A precise

treatment of this problem would be a desirable and certainly possible task. It would require

application of fireball phenomenology, energy deposition, and air chemistry codes. In the

absence of such calculations, it still appears that destruction and formation balance each

other. The NO. formed inside the fireball was carried to altitudes in excess of 100 km and was

probably not very effective in attacking the natural ozone layer. No pertinent calculations

were done for Orange, The medium-yield Bluegill event, also fired above the ozone layer, was

thoroughly analyzed. No emission was observed below 3000 A. Calculations of the unintegrated

power at wavelengths below 3000 ~ did not permit definite conclusions. In any

case, it appears that the US high-altitude tests with a total yield of the order of 10 Mt had

very little (if any) effect on the natural ozone layer.

This is understandable in view of the results of numerous recent theoretical studies relating

variations of the natural ozone in the years 1961-1964 to the massive nuclear tests of this

period. Much of the NO, produced by a total energy release of about 340 Mt, mainly from the

Russian test series in Novaya Zemlya, was carried close to and into the ozone layer. The

precise effects are still under dispute; they are partially obscured by natural fluctuations. A

temporary depletion of about 6Y. is the highest number which has appeared in the

literature;" however, other investigatorses feel that the fluctuations observed during the

critical period lie within the probable error of available ozone measurements.

So can we please bring back aerosols?

Whataya wanna start another ice age?! Can you match it with an eco-friendly propellant? Who knows we have to mandate the use of aerosols before it's over....Ha

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

http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au/jw/EMspectrum.html

"Fine, how are YOU arriving at your conclusion?"

I just make it up as I go.

Somebody needs to start a Yellowstone thread or blog. It's overdue.

Not you. I know you shy away from deep thought. Just sayin'............it would be an interesting topic.

"But the people who are in a position to know are saying"

Many times the people saying the most are either people whose only jobs are to say something, i.e. environmentalist spokes people. They wouldn't be needed or get a paycheck if they didn't keep the controversy going hence they are always going to be in the forefront of bad news harbingers.

Then of course you have the politicians who just want to stand out in front of the crowd and don't really know or care if they know what they're talking about as long as someone is listening to them.

And finally we have the ex-politicians and the political hacks who just want either to get back into office, any office, or who just plain miss being in the spotlight and will find a cause, practically any cause will do as long as it's "politically correct" and expound on the subject till the cows come home. Especially if they can pick up a 5 figure "Honorarium" that helps pay for their 5 or 6 global warming mansions.

Do not overlook the money.

I'm always confused about the notion that environmentalists have some kind of hidden agenda. As far as I can see, once people pay attention to environmentalists, the environmentalists are out of a job. (If it was a job in the first place)

Environmentalism is a valid pursuit when undertaken in a rational and balanced way. They have established national parks and forests, trails etc. Most of it is under multiple use administration. I consider myself an environmentalist, but much of the movement has gone nuts. The agenda of the extremists is to force us all into urban concentration areas, and to use minimal fossil fuels. You know some of the other crazy ideas like no hunting, fishing, harvesting trees etc. Not using fossil fuels would destroy any economy of almost any nation aside from tiny ones. A strong economy means the ability to maintain a strong defense also. I think weakening our economy may be the hidden agenda of some on the left.

Keep up.

The US Dept of Energy, based on peer reviewed studies, says Human CO2 production is >100 times bigger than that added by all volcanoes (including undersea).

And yes, in Earths history, when volcanoes caused significant CO2 level rises the temp went up.

Dont let the Irish hear this as they had 3 years of snow in a row (its a rhym dont hold me accountable for the fact) after a big vulcan event in the Indonesian world. In fact the world went through a little glacial then. Where was all the CO2 to prevent the Irish from going everywhere in the world?

Where was the warming?

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1883_eruption_of_Krakatoa

Sorry to all them Irish people if they feel hurt. I just cant shut up ...

Don't confuse him with facts.

There was no summer in the USA either, but I wasn't there to observe it, so it's just hearsay.

Inconsequential. What we really need to worry about is Galactic Cooling.

I'm looking to put together a team to do studies on this. I see great potential for getting US and UN grants for our work.

Potential applicants must enjoy social settings.

I'll be the bartender!!!!

There's always someone who feels the joke isn't already clear....

I will believe the globe is warming when I see, with my own eyes, coastal cities being swallowed up by the oceans. I am not talking about storms or tsunamis. Any changes will be so slow, that mankind will be able to adapt. Deserts were once oceans, and will be again. Some heat will definitely make a lot of land much more inhabitable, and some less comfortable. Mankind needs energy, and that need will rule the future. Hopefully we will eliminate all the pollutants that we can in the process though. I do not consider CO2 to be a pollutant, as all animal life exhales it, and vegetable life depends on it.

Love your attitude.

The Earth has been here for millennia.

In the grand scheme of things, "mankind" is not visible.

You won't see any real changes in your life. Unless Yellowstone erupts.

If Yellowstone, which is classified as a "Super" volcano blows, then the "Year Without Summer(1816) will be word-wide most likely and the power output from all those solar generating panels will probably drop to 5% or less. Scary to think that in the USA there are actually 2 other "super" volcanoes. Wonder where all the tree huggers think their electricity will come from if that should happen? Will they run out and buy coal and coal stoves to stay warm? "Oh, sorry. We had to close all the coal mines and pits since you said they were harmful to the environment". Better go knit some sweaters from wool if you can find any non-frozen live sheep. All those earthquakes that New Zealand experienced last year would be nothing compared to their Taupo volcano erupting again. Could sink all of the North Island this time just like Krakatoa sank it's host island. That was only 130 years ago. Ah yes, I remember it well. Only a young shaver on my grampa's knee then.

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

To what point should we cool the globe? The last USA glacier was in Wisconsin, and melted away approximately 10,000 years ago. Hardly a tick of the clock in the timeline of the earth. Can someone explain how man-made global warming melted that glacier, or how or efforts today will restore the temperature?

Should we restore our globe to the pristine condition before man started messing things up, and rebury Wisconsin under a layer of ice? Could make a great way to extend the skiing season.

Sorry, I can never tell if this sort of response is a joke or due to misunderstanding.

Humans didn't melt the glacier. As everyone keeps pointing out the Earth's climate changes continually, that's well known, the difference with "so called" human induced climate change is the timescale.

The Wisconsin glaciation was from 110,000 to 10,000 years ago and the changes happened over 1000's of years. Animal and human habitat changed slowly and both had a chance to adapt, but modern climate change looks to be happening on a much shorter time scale (say 100y).

This means the farming areas that provide food for your children may no longer be in temperate regions, the weather patterns you rely on may change by the time your children grow and low lying coastlines may be more prone to storm & flood effects.

Low lying coastlines are already more prone to storms etc. That goes without saying. They shouldn't be built on, unless built on stilts,or a raft. We all reinsure people who decide to live in dangerous spots.

Speaking of sudden climate changes, Wooly Mammoths have been found buried intact in several arctic areas, with frozen vegetation. That is pretty sudden.

I'd say lets have CR4 develope a big fridge that cools down Earth without producing waste heat. This will be to the benifit of all. We can tap in a broad knowledge of Magnetic selfdriven compressore units that run outside the rankin cycle with an itch of Tesla coils wrapped around the metal forhead (I mean the developer) to save the world.

What did I say? Oh just post it ....

I watch the news and see stories like Al Gore buying a mega-mansion that has a huge carbon footprint or about AGW-promoting alarmists traveling around the globe using high CO₂ output vehicles while telling other people to reduce their carbon output (like the story linked below) -- when I see stuff like this I think I'll start believing in Global Warming due to anthropogenic CO₂ when they do.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/9284276/Will.I.Am-attends-climate-change-talk-in-helicoper.html

I like how they are finally talking in the amount of pollutants emitted ("The United States accounts for six billion tonnes, China seven and the European Union (EU) five, the CAT said."). I can relate to and do something about the amount emitted. Now if they will quit focusing on an estimated arbitrary temperature and focus on ppm of the pollutants in the atmosphere, they might be able to draw in the rest of the naysayers. The climate record shows ghg's driving the planets past climate shifts and related extinctions. I also think they need to focus on the change in the acidity of the oceans. I think the oceans will hit the tipping point far before the climate does (don't understand what has happened in the planet's history when the ocean hits its tipping point, watch the linked video at the end of this comment).

As for the Irish cooling story above, volcanoes also release sulfur gases into the atmosphere. Sulfur gases cause a short term cooling affect.

Who quotes wiki in a scientific conversation?<rhetorical> Anybody can alter wiki to say whatever they want it to say.

I say we leave this to the climate scientists (like Robert Alley) who know what they are doing and do this on a daily basis. Us having this conversation is like me trying to talk finance or stocks with someone who works on wall street. Or me trying to talk about car engines with a mechanic. Or trying to talk about how the brain functions with a neurologist. It isn't going to happen and I probably would not retain everything the individual was saying causing a misunderstanding of the topic. Being an environmental engineer working in air quality, I can understand that everything we emit has an affect whether it be speeding us toward extinction or causing disease.

If you want to further understand the subject (climate change), here is a good video that summarizes what the climate historians have looked at and how it relates to pollution emitted by humans.

I watched the video. I am not a believer in man made global warming. You might be interested in this though, if you are following the battle:http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/book-review-michael-manns-the-hockey-stick-and-the-climate-wars/2012/05/25/gJQAIYzQqU_story.html?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost

Milder winters for our region, ah! good things come to he who waits

They must have used a lot of fossil fuel in those days!http://phys.org/news/2012-05-climate-collapse-ancient-indus-civilization.html