Global Warming

Substances and materials that are not absorbing light spectrum frequencies for the purpose of photosynthesis are instead capable of generating heat. calculate the sum of all parts of the earth that are exposed relative to the sun that make up the man made areas and multiply his figure by the amount of average kilowatts of heat energy given of by such materials and you will have an extremely high figure relating to heat generated at any given moment as the earth turns, even natural areas such as deserts should be put into this equation.

The answer, plant more trees and allow as many areas of open ground to over grow naturally.

If you look at cut grass you will notice it dies very quick in the summer, if however you walk(drive) down the road to you nearest meadow you will notice that the grass in the meadow is very healthy, this is because at night the longer grass captures moisture in the air and condenses and conducts it to its roots by natural design, the moisture that is given into the ground is in turn protected by the roof like effect of the grass itself, and allows a cycle of life that does not create any heat or dry ground.

Its simple

The universe is absolutely large and and the man's activities on the earth have no effect at all,i don't believe the theories don't comply with what i say.

Everything you've mentioned is not just true it is well known to be true. This is why the scientists that you've contacted about the heat island effect are not interested. Scientists are looking to find new information and to inform people about what they've found. A businessman is interested if they can make a profit, not a scientist.

Thats nice for them scientists, however like most things i work alone away from other scientist, and this theory pre dates 2000. and what now annoys me is if these scientists know about this situation why haven't i or others heard about it and why are they not doing a great deal about it, is see no major tree planting schemes here or encouragement to over grow areas, i am just one man who has an overgrown garden and trees, they have failed to address what they know, that is really annoying to find out.

http://www.worldlandtrust.org/supporting/donation.htm?gclid=CKL21v--w6UCFY4f4Qodugiuog

Our California City of nearly one million people has an active program to provide what you wish.

Acressive planting by the city, of shade trees in street medians and street borders.

Homes must have 50% of front lawn area planted in grass and plants. Tree encouraged.

Use of recycled water on city lands

reduced trash

clean tech jobs

Energy use reductions

green buildings

Buying renewable energy

public vehicles using alternate fuesl

They take it seriously

Thats a nice to hear, jolly good on them, I'm positive these contributions will at the very least do something towards the problem of global warming

Dub, you state a good case but from some of the replies it seems a lot of people can't or won't listen to reason.

'Twas ever thus and ever will be.

Thankyou for noticing my environmental friend, we must act.

Global warming and melting of ice.:If we look at rise of sea level as indication of global warming . the rise of sea level is going on for few thousand years, when Industrialization was not there. I some time wonder how much sea level rise is due to Industrialization and how much is because of continuing "other factors" ? Secondly Carbon Dioxide presence in atmosphere has also a positive effect , as we read, so it is not clear how much of what is responsible for global warming. Thirdly Amazon rain forest is very important for various seasonal effects , why it was allowed to get reduced in last two decades ? The forest was reduced to offset production of crops meant for making bio fuels.

The Amazon rain forest has been reduced over the years as Brazil develops. They need the land.

You want to tell them they should not do so? What do you offer in return. The Brazilian peasant could care less about global warming/cooling or anything else of that nature - they just want to live and do a bit better.

İndia and China often demand the 'right' to do what the developed countries have done - but it is not OK fro Brazil? That 'right' I mentioned includes making the same amount of pollution as others have managed to make the past 100 years or so.

Well put!

Congratulations to you Dub, as you have provided a consise answer to your question.

Yes amusingly i have posted my own answer to this question, i was very busy yesterday and oddly had to post an answer at the same time, but hay ho thats me.

I'm not sure what your question or precise discussion point is, Dub. Can you clarify please. If you're going to talk energy on a planetary scale, you may need to up the ante from kilowatts - from the mere act of walking about I give off more than a killowatt each day, and that's not just hot air ().

I live in the world of the SI units my friend, you cannot just talk about terror watts without first doing calculation using smaller values like the common KW per M2 once averages are gained you can multiply to give a average figure of larger true value, please don't insult my intelligence (what i have left of it) also i have not done this calculation due to the fact it is above my mathematical station to calculate all these average figures and therefore i would not assume any such figures KW MW TW etc etc, I'm just giving the simple principles.

Peace and love

That is fine, Dub. Merely a case on misocsontribuity (trust me, it googles) on my part. Feckawatts is probably closer to the required dimension. It does have a certain ring to it.

Cool i have created such words when they are required,

peace and love

Here in (backward) SA (as in more parts of the world) we now call it Global Weather Change because we experienced some cooling instead of warming.

This year however is the hottest in 100 years and my wife who passed the dragon age without a fan bought two this winter.

According to our draft Green Paper on Weather Change (up for comments) our GWC was caused by Apartheid and it should be easy to rectify.

Our heavy pollution (also caused by apartheid) may exclude success.

It is good that you are willing to offer your opinions, and have a debate on this issue.

Here are my opinions:

When I was growing up, there were many environmental issues of the day. They all had a valid scientific base, but usually were hyped up to the point of hysteria. This shut out any meaningful ideas and thoughts from other's, who did not buy into the strict doctrine of the day, were shut out and ostracised.

Here is a list of what I went through

-Pollution: It was going to be so bad that we would all choke to death in a few years. I am still alive and breathing, and the air is much cleaner.

-Water: We were all to die of thirst (I do not trivialize the fact that potable water is a major issue in many parts of the world today). Water is now being taken seriously.

-Global cooling: We were all going to freeze to death because of particulate mater in the atmosphere. I have no idea where that went.

-Global starvation: We were all going to die due to lack of food. The Green revolution happened

-Acid rain: The atmosphere was to be so acidic that rain would cause burns. We all were going to die. The cause was reduced by capitalistic government's.

-Ozone depletion: At least this one had consistent empirical evidence. Cause and effect were proven. Steps were taken (the Montreal protocol). This did not stop those who said we were all going die from UV radiation.

-And now Global warming. Again we are all going to die

-Killer Bee's Say no more.

As I said, all the above had good scientific grounding at the start. Many of these issues have been, or in the process of being addressed. In the Western world.

When was the last time you heard about; Global cooling, Acid rain, Ozone depletion, Global food shortages, Global air quality, Global water shortages, and yes killer Bee's?

All of the above were based on data of the day, and it was used to generate fear, in order to further various agendas, all dissenters were brushed aside and labeled.

Now too the Capitalistic system.

Over the years many capitalist companies have done terrible things, not only to the environment, but people as well. This does not let the Communist and Dictatorial nations off the hook.

The past and present damage by them pales in comparison to the west. A little research will give you the evidence.

The big difference is that we can dissent, protest or vote the powers that be out of office. We can demand changes to the environmental laws. We can effect change.

In China, there is no debate, no discussion on the environment. The Three Gorges dam is just one example. Not to mention the massive construction of Coal fired generating plants.

In the former Soviet union. There was a nuclear weapons plant that stored its waste outside in piles. This worked until something went really wrong.

If there is to be any kind of change on global climate, everyone has to be onboard, all nations. For pollution and CO2 know no bounds.

It is easy to slam the West and Capitalism, yet you have seemed to ignore some of the worst polluters around, that just happen to be Communist or dictator states.

I have put this simple theory to government scientists but they don't seem interested...

Who in your government is making money from your carbon footprint? Wouldn't it be easier to tax you on the size and reflectance of your roof? In our government, employees are paid mediocre wages in keeping with the mediocre work they do. Some politicians make extra money through graft, but global warming rarely enters into that equation.

I suspect the reason that scientists seem uninterested is that your hunch is just one part of the quite complex climate change models and that it alone does not fully support the observable facts.

If it were not for the greenhouse effect, our planet would be frozen, given its blackbody temperature of about -18 degrees C. The heat-absorbing materials you mention re-radiate that heat back to space, and that re-radiation is impeded by the greenhouse effect. Reduce greenhouse effect and we freeze. Increase it and we cook. Your hunch covers one small part of the total picture.

I don't dispute other effects on the planet, the various layers surrounding the planet are exceptionally complex systems especially the thermo sphere, i am putting this with them, as you note the beginning of my post states 'disregarding the stuff about CO2,

But while on the subject of thermo-sphere i don't believe it is a good idea to clad buildings in reflective cooling solutions as this energy ends up in the trapped gas layers of the upper atmospheres.

And in the UK carbon is lucrative all people think about is carbon, but there is more than can be done than just carbon reduction through technology.

And in the UK carbon is lucrative all people think about is carbon, but there is more than can be done than just carbon reduction through technology.

Using less energy is essentially synonymous with carbon reduction, (because the vast majority of our energy sources are carbon-based) so all the things we have been (and should be) doing to conserve, reuse, and recycle both reduce the rate at which we squander the world's resources and reduce global warming.

Of course tree growth is carbon negative, so regardless of motive, planting tress is a good thing. Tree planting is widely practiced in virtually all parts of the world to combat global warming.

The biological energy sinks (trees, algae, etc.) being removed might have something to do with global warming, under the reasoning that energy stored by photosynthesis is not available to heat the atmosphere. Of course, there is also the capture of CO2 by photosynthesis. But maybe a bigger driver is the accumulated waste heat from many years of burning fossil fuels. Eons of stored solar energy have been released in the combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas, and most of that became waste heat rejected to the atmosphere. The First Law balance is tipping during the Anthropocene. So saving the rain forest won't stop global warming. Surely the climate scientists have taken into account all those quads of energy in their calculations, so this is just ignorant speculation on my part.

Here in Mumbai (India) it is raining and raining since last June. Normally rains should have stopped by Sept. end, but this year they have continued till Nov, destroying number of crops and causing floods in some areas. This resulted of climate change due to Global Warming. Have a look at the clouds formation in pic below.

Suresh Sharma.

Much as I hate to play the devils advocate on this one, you cannot cite one years events as proof of climate change and global warming.

For the record, I consider both to be reasonably proven fact. The input you give, whilst interesting, is not substantive. You possibly have ready access to data that makes your point better than you just did. Sorry, but I'm just saying - a point not made clearly will be used be denialists.

No (in case anybody was wondering), I will not enter a protractcted debate about global warning. It's way too big an issue for a discussion to remain unheated (if you'll all excuse the expression). One either believes or does not.

Sorry if I'm throwing petrol on the fire, i do not see though how things need to become heated as i do not dispute scientists description of there findings i am just adding this as it is something that we as individuals are capable of tackling, even if it only makes a small contribution it is still relative to our overall problem of global warming, as mentioned some things are beyond our political control.

Hi Kris, I hope you must be already aware of the fact that during past few years Rain Gods have created havoc in many parts of the world. This is on of the incident I have cited as we have just gone through the same. It is not only one incident.I dont think there are any DENILISTS on this subject.

Spot on my friend spot on.

Some people say that global acidification of water, by the CO2 turning it into weak carbonic acid is as serious as global warming.

Phytoplankton are being lost and possibly replaced by sulphide bacteria. These bacteria produce H2S which bubbles up into the atmosphere. There is speculation that H2S produced several extinction events in the past. It is more deadly than cyanide.

I think the biochemistry is sufficiently well understood so that scientists have a good idea how acid the oceans get before it "flips" and becomes a mega producer of hydrogen sulphide.

I saw pictures that suggest it is already happening in the black sea.

Nobody has mentioned sunspot cycle- every 11 years the Sun goes thru a reduced output-less sunspots on sun surface = less solar output- this lasts about 2 years- the sun has just finished the s/s cycle. The reduced heat affects the jet streams which affects the weather which results in extreme weather prolonged in some locations such as drought, floods, cold, hot,over average conditions going back many years. Then we have the La Nina- El Nino ocean warming /cooling which also affects weather. As to whether the earth is cooling or warming caused by human actions- it seems pretty clear it is- at the very least human action is deleterious to everything they touch- look at extinction of species- look at pollution- look at inhumanity to fellow creatures- look at greed greed greed & you will see that human beings are the biggest vandals this world has ever known & if there was a deity or even a Gaiia there surely would be retributions. I see "they are trying to start a war with N Korea ie China"- always works when a system is bankrupt & printing money like crazy!!!.

It is not clear why lake waters are getting warmer? A report says a study has been done to measure lake water temperature changes,but it does not mention why it is changing? Any idea? The sea level is going up and rising past 10000 years. This rise in the past is not due to Industrialization ? Then why it has been rising ? As some of you are saying that the Industrialization created a layer and protected the earth. Is that so? Can any one quantify what percentage is for what reason? Positive or negative. Some article I read , that as farmers in USA went for biofuel cultivation( inplace of corn) in a big way, it created an opportunity to make corn in Brazil for exporting to USA. So the rain forest got reduced , creating major changes in atmosphere.

One of the quantitative sources of information that is well documented would be a study of temperature differences between rural and city. Why the distinction? I don't think that it would bear out that localized green house gases would turn out to be the culprit. It doesn't fit the narrative of the hypothesis. It more likely appears to bear out the hypothesis laid out here of heat absorption with release over time at night.

In city , concrete buildings/roads of any kind absorb heat. AC's while cool inside , heats up outside so also car AC's . So progressively heating is more and more in city. Many cities which did not even need ceiling fans in summer , needs everything else to live in comfort. In India Bangalore and Pune are two cities where this is pronounced due to rapid urbanization.Both these places are hot during summer now ( comparing with what was 20 years back).

Hi Dub

No I am not 105 but have and used some old climate data for irrigation design.

In about 1995 when global warping was a buzz word I could not really find evidence of it in the data sets available to me. (my sample range was however not big enough to come to any conclusion.)

Since 1995 our pollution of water resources increased exponentially, our development rate for users exceeds our rate of creating water treatment infrastructure by miles and I now work along with any green, blue or brown person in an attempt to avert our looming crises.

I agree that the destruction and over use of our existing resources are a greater threat as this time, it is the here and now. If we can not get this under control soon, than global warming/ climate change will be irrelevant.

I agree that the destruction and over use of our existing resources are a greater threat as this time, it is the here and now.

However, global warming has enough positive feedback loops (increased methane from melting bogs, CO2 coming out of warmer water, etc) that we could reach the point of no return if we do not take meaningful steps to reduce our inputs. Sometimes, the here and now can be too late. For example, treating colon cancer at the polyp stage is a simple task. Wait a while and the disease can be life-threatening.

Water is a pressing issue, in that we can't seem to get enough fresh water to the right places at the right times and quantities.

There is no question, I think, that we are over-using all our resources, especially fuels, but at least in the case of fuels we have numerous options -- and when they all run out we will have solar power. But if we are extinct, via global warming, we won't be there to worry about such things.