Posted on 05/10/2017 11:23:56 PM PDT by GraceG
I shared these on another site, and by the time i did i typed out basically a mini-thesis so i want to share with all the freeples!
[ Concerning CO2 levels and heating on Venus, Mars and Earth ]
CO2 has it's limits as a green house gas and it is a very low pressure, compared to Venus which is a very large pressure of CO2. Of course on earth CO2 was at over 1900 PPM during the Jurassic period but somehow dinosaurs were not running around on fire for some reason, of course plants loved that environment, which is why the eco sphere was able to support giant land dinosaurs like apatosaurus.... but if we go above 400 PPM today our modern plants will die and earth will turn into a flaming fire ball orbiting the sun because.... um.. science???? Go look it up on wikipedia, the CO2 levels during the era of dinosaurs was much much higher than today by over 7-10 TIMES! I guess dinosaurs and plants back then were fire-retardant....
Also H2O is a a more powerful green house gas than CO2 and it fluctuates from 0% to 4% and swings wildly every day, compared to CO2 which stays at roughly ~0.0360%. How we have survived such giant variations daily on this powerful greenhouse gas is beyond me at this time...
To answer your question on Mars it is the greater distance from the sun combines with the very low pressure of the atmosphere. Everyone these days thinks CO2 is a "Magic Greenhouse Gas" , it is not, it is like any other gas and follows the same laws any other gas does. The function of saturation vs. green house effect does have a saturation limit which means it's green house effect doesn't rise proportionally like line drawn at a 45 degree angle instead it more of a curve that after a point has diminishing returns.
Venus is hot as hell for 2 reasons, lack of plate tectonics, which causes heat to build up from the planet's molten core causing it to resurface itself ever 100 million years or so, and the sheer thickness of the atmosphere. Interestingly the planet Venus reflects a whole lot more energy from the sun due to it's high white sulfur dioxide clouds , the CO2 on Venus does act as a heat blanket, but at the pressures and densities any gas stable at the high temperatures would have nearly the same effect.
[ Concerning human impact on the environment vs. climate Change ]
Human's actions may or may not have a impact and there are many over looked areas of impact that no one seems to consider, instead, they all go after the CO2 boogieman.
Case in point, Urban Heat islands. After it snows wait a few days and drive tot he countryside, there will be more snow left in the country, due to the heat island effect, in cities you have direct heating from homes and cars ( this is the heat energy coming from heaters, people, car engines etc) , you have a asphalt, shingles and other dark structures which absorb IR heat, you have green lawns and trees too ( depending on the area more in the city per acre than in the countryside ). Heat rises, so imagine these giant columns of hot air over cities rising up and affecting the weather/jet stream. Probably does affect climate a lot more than most climate scientist realize.
Farming can also change the heat pattern of earth, a grassland has a heat potential for absorption which is less than a field of corn, crops are irrigated which cause large amounts of H20 to evaporate and H20 is ALSO a greenhouse gas. Also keep in mind that in America before the 1900s every decade or so you would have giant prairie fires that would burn across entire states releasing god knows how much soot and ash into the air. since we started farming, fencing and building roads ( roads act as fire breaks on the plains) there have been very few giant fires like there were over 150 years ago as well.
Yes, Humans DO affect the climate, we DO need stop dumping bad chemicals like Sulfur Gasses into the environment and dumping bad chemicals into rivers etc.... But CO2 is getting a undue bad rap, did you know that the higher the CO2 levels the less water a plant will need, it's true! Greenhouses sometimes utilize CO2 generators to make the plants grow faster. Earth's history the CO2 levels have been significantly higher and these high levels during the dinosaur era was what led to increased plant growth where the environment could support giant plant eating monsters like apatosaurus. Historically the earth is in a period where the CO2 levels are at some of the lowest they have been for the last 200 million years. Check Wikipedia, check the CO2 levels for the Jurassic, Triassic, and Cretaceous if you don't believe me.
Also they don't take into effect variables such as solar activity as much as they should as well. When either global warming / cooling is happening on both earth and mars at the same time , then either our CO2 is being blown off the earth by solar wind and drifting to mars ( this is obviously false as any amount would be entire negligible ) or increased solar output is the cause. Also the suns magnetosphere can affect climate as when the solar cycle weakens it allows more cosmic rays to make it to earth which act like nucleation centers for water droplets ( the reason cloud chambers work to track particles in old rime particle accelerators ) .that can also have an effect on climate.
Yes we need to recycle, yes we need to limit pollutants, but we shouldn't follow a "zero tolerance policy" on relatively harmless gasses such as CO2, we should however follow zero tolerance environmental policies on nasty carcinogens, gasses that can create acid rain, and biological impact chemicals like phytoestrogens and herbicide/ pesticides that have broad spectrum impacts on plants and animals.
One of the Carlson points which I always find interesting is that you can readily point out in the past one-million years....50 big climate changes of a catastrophic nature.
Not just a thousand, or ten-thousand people dying.
As he suggests...man might be able to do some minor things, but until we acknowledge the 50 events and how society came very close to dying out with no inter-action by mankind...only then can we move ahead.
Carlson does point out, and I readily agree with that logic, that we ought to clean up our rivers, lakes and streams...and try to lessen air pollution. I think on those points....he’s right. Lot of constructive things that we can do without creating a fake science.
Great, not only are we tipping over Guam, we are tipping the earth too. When will we ever learn.
I recently stumbled across his work on YouTube. He has a lot of material there.
Before fossil fuels: 280 ppm or 0.028% of the atmosphere. After fossil: 400ppm. Man's contribution is 0.012% Your number is about the amount of manmade increase every 5 years.
That’s because CO2 doesn’t keep our planet warm, N2 and O2 do that. The CO2 does capture outgoing IR and transfer it to the N2 and O2. Mars is missing the N2 and O2.
I just expelled some greenhouse gases from my posterior. Does that make me an enemy of the state?
Ahh. But are CO2 from natural sources not taken into account? The explosion of Java and Pinatubo did not contribute to the increase
It makes you a likely candidate to be fitted with a government-owned "methane harvester." I've heard they're somewhat uncomfortable to wear.
I just ask if they’ve heard of Greenland and how it gots it’s name and that it’s now covered in ice.
Hillary said this Climate Cr** was to engage younger future voters and they sure have marketed it to them from the Penguin walk to Green shirts at school.
Gonna write a children's book....Facts and Farts!!
Yet these same scientists are the same that recommend "bugging" old gas station sites in cleanup scenarios.
They will simply produce the results the government wants you to see. It's called "Selective Science Method".....aka.....lying your a** off.
Volcanoes are an asterisk. Pinatubo was equal to a day or two of manmade CO2.
The bottom line is manmade CO2 is unequivocally good.
Horse hockey. This is an opinion and not proven fact.
Besides there is no such thing as man made - the stored hydrocarbons were once biologic creatures, so it is all natural. Unless you believe in abiogenic petroleum which has not been disproven IMO. I consider it a a viable theory.
Something tells me those gassed weren’t green.
I thought “climate change” was a dead horse, why keep beating it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.