“greenhouse”? What greenhouse effect?

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
Gerlich, Gerhard; Tscheuschner, Ralf D.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161

The common misconception is;As we add more and more carbon atoms so more heat is retained by the increasing number and reflection of heat also increases

You missed the point regarding the fact that once the outgoing radiation that CO2 can capture has been absorbed there’s none left for additional CO2 to have any further influence – it’s a logarithmic effect i.e. the more CO2 you add the less the effect until there’s virtually no effect at all. And as you stated “reflects heat in all directions” – that’s out into space as well. This “greenhouse” has no roof.

The fact that that Co2 was many times higher in the past during extreme cold periods proves the point.

A simple way to explain it is;If you add extra blinds to a window the second has little effect and the third next to zilsh and so on.

So in fact,WHO REALLY ARE THE REAL DENIALISTS OF TRUTH?

THE SCAMERS,!THE SCAREMONGERS FOR PROFIT OR GREED!,THOSE ON THE AWG BANDWAGON!THE IGNORANT AND UNEDUCATED! THATS WHO!!!!!

a href=”URL” with the text in the middle, followed by /a normally does it (with the <> thingies around the code, which I didn’t put in cos it turns them into code and than you can’t see them)

Have a look at Andrew’s Crikey post about “Carbon Levy instead of ETS for farms” (nov 3 2008)
(http://blogs.crikey.com.au/bartlett/2008/11/03/carbon-levy-instead-of-ets-for-farms/)
refers to a report from the Australia Institute which concurs with my comments about Methane in the short term (ie. achievable in your lifetime type!) We are not talking about native animals but agricultural livestock. Surely an essential service but a man-made issue if ever there was one. Hardly a distraction, but not something anybody wants to do anything about.
I am not having a go at the farmers or the poor livstock. My concern is that the panic attacks are going to cost us and not deliver any outcomes. Any real hope (assuming this is a problem with a solution) may lie in actively scrubbing the atmosphere of CO2 (http://www.physorg.com/news141915261.html) as I will bet London-to-a-brick that if it is in the ground (fossil fuel) it WILL be dug up and burned until it is all gone. Guaranteed.

PS Andrew, is there a better way to put permalinks into a reply like this??

If the focus of public discussion can be kept on the release of fossilized carbon it means the core issue of the manmade component of green house gas emissions being liberated in unprecedented volumes over a very short time frame is more likely to be better addressed by public policy settings.

The distractions that get thrown up about methane, which is predominantly released by decaying vegetable matter, or farting livestock,have very little contact with the burning of huge amounts of coal or oil. They are part of the short term carbon cycles. We need to target carbon by origin rather than have hysterics about all carbon.

If surface transport systems had experienced the same market driven efficiency drive as air transport in the past 30 years the industrial contribution to greenhouse gas forcing might well have been halved by now. It is ironic that these improvements were not motivated by concerns about greenhouse gases but more mundane things like community outrage over the black sooty contrails of the early 707s and DC-8s and a need to cut costs and find ways of flying jets non-stop from Europe to LA instead of one-stop to New York via Gander or Prestwick.

If an ETS will work along similar lines it clearly will be welcomed. If it leads to more synthetic derivatives like those that are bringing down the global financial system, and results in balance sheet engineering rather than transport engineering, then very little benefit is going to emerge.

I agree we have to find a way to make them work, and of course responsibly. Non fossil carbon releasing fuel will come, the question is when, and one answer that is unacceptable is anything that comes at the expense of agricultural production, hence the sudden fascination in the past year by the aircraft and engine makers in fuel derived from algae.

If we were to shut down the air transport sector (apart from flights for the ruling elite) the investment in those innovations will never occur. I don’t think the public purse will ever be raided that extensively to help airlines. That is not politically feasible. These innovations have to be paid for by the industry, and so far, that is happening, because the market for acceptable fleet replacement with green machines is enormous, and so far, those who fly the cleanest jets are also enjoying cost benefits that are seriously useful in the current adverse trading environment.

Ben: Yes but atmosheric methane mainly (about 90%)breaks down naturally in the troposphere forming water vapour and CO2!! same-same!. There is a difference in emissions from burning natural gas which is not pure methane and is a fossil fuel but that was not really my point either. Rather that it must be better to use the biomass stuff.
I was quoting the GWP number as follows but don’t see your point… mine sounded much bigger but it is still worse whichever way you look!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential
Indeed, methane’s shorter half-life makes it a much better target for reduction as this will impact more rapidly on potential global warming than concentrating on CO2 alone. This will buy you more time to deal with the CO2.
Why must these things always end this way? YOU were wanting to run jets on cleaner fuel so the Chinese don’t have to walk to Europe for holidays. I was just trying to help. I guess we stray from the original point about what we would personally give up? The transport issue is a biggy as I cannot see society functioning without airtravel and cars. We have to find a way to make them work. Our infrastructure would completely collapse.

You are backing yourself into the same corner as those moments in late colonial history when the popular media would run “We warn the Tsar” headlines. How exactly do you propose stopping the Chinese and Indians from flying if they decide they can afford to do so?

You are out of touch with the commitment by the air transport industry to devise and use non fossil fuel sources of fuel. Your comment also illustrates the danger of the anti-technology position, in that its authority would rest on suppressing innovation. I don’t think we can say in 2008, hey, it’s all over. Shut it down. There is no solution.

This is the same problem that would arise if for example, large economies decided they had to go down the nuclear fission path for base power load generation as a compulsory and urgent pathway to drastically reducing fossilized carbon release. There is no economic or environmentally rational case for adopting ‘old style’ fission for base load power, but if it was embraced on a massive and urgent scale, the state would have to suppress any subsequent clean energy initiatives that might emerge to undermine that investment, and the restrictive legal environment, that would facilitate the massive use of nuclear energy.

Once it becomes official policy that there are no technological solutions to clean flight, or clean anything for that matter, the stability of such a closed society depends on crushing dissent or innovation.

Sort of like the Rudd Government in its embrace of clean coal at the expense of solar or other renewable solutions.

I thought the opacity of methane in terms of atmospheric green house gas effects was between 22 and 23 times that of carbon dioxide.

Methane however breaks down very rapidly compared to the latter, which will reduce only slowly through natural processes. There is a need for care to be taken in discussing methane, apart from during socially awkward moments. For example, I read one somewhat hysterical reader comment in Crikey recently expressing alarm at how much methane would be liberated into the atmosphere during forest fires. The answer of course is none. It is like asking how much petroleum will be injected into the atmosphere when an oil refinery goes up. None. It burns. Methane is the prime component of natural gas.

The issue too isn’t how much methane is ‘liberated’ by livestock or humans, but how much carbon dioxide overload is being pumped out by industrial processes that burn fossil fuels (which can include methane rich natural gas, which releases carbon dioxide and other pollutants during combustion.)

The accidental or willful fudging of all carbon emissions involved in the natural carbon cycles with the persistent and serious long term consequences of fossil fuel releases means the focus of the debate is blurred. We need a sharp focus surely on the prime issue, which is ‘dirty’ energy.

I suggest you read Robert Rapier’s blog for a does of reality on biofuels. There is no alternative to kerosene on the horizon, at least not one with lower energy inputs and with lower life-cycle CO2 emissions.

The energy transmission stuff is pretty ‘out there’. Where did you read that? Popular Science, next to the article on perpetual motion machines?

Mate, I am not an anti-technologist. I work in technology, always have. There are good low carbon solutions for ground transportation and stationary electricity generation, but there’s nothing on the horizon for air travel. Nothing.