Author stokes climate change debate
Categories:
By Rob Krier
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
April 5, 2006
Tim Flannery believes no one can know the future with certainty, but the evidence is overwhelming that global warming will likely have devastating impacts. The time for debate and discussion has long since passed, he writes in his new book, “The Weather Makers: The History and Future Impact of Climate Change.”
“If . . . we wait to see if an ailment is indeed fatal, we will do nothing until we are dead.”
A noted zoologist and director of the South Australian Museum, Flannery says our fate is in our own hands – “for we are the weather makers, and we already possess all the tools required to avoid catastrophic climate change.”
We contacted Flannery, who will speak at the San Diego Zoo Monday, via e-mail while he was on tour in Barbados.
________________
link:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20060405-9999-1c05flannery.ht...
No need to debate 'climate change', such change is persistent.
Climate has always been 'changing'; there is as such nothing really to debate about such 'change' being 'existent'. See the link: - http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/348 for more detail.
There is not however able to be produced in valid SCIENCE an outline of a 'greenhouse effect' that notices the actual properties of CO2 (and the other labeled 'greenhouse gases'). There is not possible therefore, as outlined by the 'greenhouse theory', a 'greenhouse effect'. See the link: - http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312 for more detail.
Thus there is not by a 'greenhouse effect' OR produced by the actual materials behavior, a 'warming effect' from CO2 and apart from notice as a portion of 'air pollution' there is little need to regard CO2 (or the other supposed 'greenhouse gases') with any special regard. There is most certainly NO 'CO2 forcing' as made mention of in relation to a 'greenhouse' concept.
There are numerous sources for materials information, you might look at:-
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/h2ovibr.html
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.html
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/index.html
http://www.ipr.res.in/~othdiag/fir/stability/node12.html
Solar radiation intensity is a variant of the oscillations of planetary climate, as I have mentioned. The Stellar output of radiation, in spectral division, is coupled with Planetary Axial precession and Orbital Variation to produce a trivariant oscillator of the (irregularly periodic) Primary Climate Oscillation.
It is not that H20 is an 'amplifier' of 'CO2 warming' but the exact opposite. CO2 (and the other 'greenhouse gases) slow the induction rate of kinetic energy induction by atmospheric H2O molecules by intercepting the cascade Photons instead of a H2O molecule. As each interception allows the Photon the opportunity to take the trended outward (density gradient based) motion the chance of avoiding H2O is increased at such 'non-H2O events' as Photons trend to be 'lifted' above the H2O region.
You need only look at the chart of atmospheric absorbance in the link: - http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312 to notice the range of the energy interactions of H2O and the materials links to note the dipole behaviors of the H2O molecule will be producing less remittance of energy as Secondary Photons and thus retain more energy as a kinetic alteration of the molecular (unit) velocity. This trait of H2O is at a rate near 100 times that of the CO2 molecule.
The plot for CO2 shows interaction with energy, but much of this energy is reemitted as Secondary Photons, NOT retained as a kinetic energy gain (again related to the dipole behavior of the CO2 molecule). The plot for CH4 and NO2 shows very narrow interactions behavior in comparison, and the molecules have strong remittance trends also.
So the H2O molecules actually become directly 'heated' whilst CO2 and the other 'greenhouse molecules' SLOW this process.
The Photons reemitted by CO2 and CH4 (as example) do NOT represent 'heat trapping' either, in any valid consideration. 'Heat', measured as Temperature, is the measure of the average kinetic velocity of the molecules (as also is Pressure such another measure) of the 'sample'. The energy reemitted as Photons is separate from the molecules of the atmosphere, even if within the 'boundary region' of the atmosphere.
The suspension of these Photons within the CASCADE formed by the supposed 'greenhouse gases' is simply the suspension of ENERGY. The trended MOTION of these Photons is OUTWARD as the lowering density at increased altitude reduced interception rates. The output of this cascade is records as the "Albedo" of this 'planet'.
Increasing the proportion of 'greenhouse gases' will REDUCE the kinetic energy induction (and incidence) rate of H2O molecules (100 times stronger than that of the CO2 molecule) within that portion of the atmosphere BELOW the Water 'Ice & Condensation' altitudes, the Gravity induced rarefication of the atmosphere will reduce such induction rates above these altitudes in conjunction with the reduction in H2O 'molecular population' occurring also.
The planetary Land surface, and alterations to such, is driving both weather patterning alterations and the small rises in median surface temperatures, as previously mentioned. The 'solid surface' cannot shed induced kinetic energy into internal turbulence as readily so expresses such as 'heat' which is conducted into the contacting Ocean and Atmosphere. This is seen in the plot within the link: - http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/348
Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com
Post new comment