Posted on 03/08/2007 12:30:33 PM PST by presidio9
We are extremely well informed by our news media of nationally important events such as the latest on Britney Spears and Anna Nicole Smith, but it would be nice to see educational information on the apparently more trivial issue of global warming. E. Thomas McClanahan, who admits to not being a scientist, authored an article in the Feb. 28 The Herald Bulletin ridiculing the idea of global warming. He points out that 60 Canadian “scientists” (a relatively small number) wrote to the Prime Minister to question the credibility of global warming. We hear of other “scientists” who also are doubtful, but their credentials are usually not specified. Anyone with a Bachelor of Science degree in basket weaving or journalism can be called a scientist.
The fundamentals of global warming are simple enough that they should not overstress the average intelligence. It is a proven and scientifically quantified fact that carbon dioxide intercepts infrared radiation. Without this interception of radiant energy, heat loss from the earth would make it quite cold and uninhabitable. With too much carbon dioxide the planet would be like Venus, much too warm for life as we know it. The earth continuously receives light from the sun which converts to heat when intercepted. The earth radiates infrared outward, carrying heat away at a rate essentially equal to the rate of heat input from the sun.
With balance between solar heat input and outward radiation loss the average earth temperature remains constant. Locally the temperature varies between about zero and 100 degrees Fahrenheit. That is an arbitrary scale which is misleading. In a more realistic absolute scale, our local temperature varies between about 460 and 560 degrees Rankine. Thus we live in a rather narrow range maintained by balance between solar energy absorption and infrared re-radiation of energy into space.
Mankind has reduced the rate of solar energy absorption by making the Earth more reflective through deforestation and overgrazing for animal production. This has had a cooling effect, but now temperatures are rising because of increasing carbon dioxide levels due to burning fossil fuels, including coal and oil. The atmospheric interception of radiant energy has been termed “greenhouse effect.” That is not an adequately descriptive term. A more appropriate term might be “rectification,” as used in electrical work to describe the action of limiting flow to one direction.
Melting of reflective snow and ice caps increases absorption of solar energy, producing further temperature rise, in a regenerative effect. Although it is virtually unmentioned in the media, atmospheric water vapor is also a “greenhouse gas” which absorbs infrared radiation. Because moisture held by the atmosphere increases with temperature, another regenerative effect is produced. It has been speculated that Mars lost most of its water through this action. A third regenerative effect would be liberation of carbon dioxide from warming ocean water. The oceans hold many times more carbon dioxide than does the entire atmosphere. The relation between temperature and solubility of carbon dioxide in water can be plainly witnessed by opening two bottles of carbonated beverage, one cold and the other warm. The warmer one will foam more as a greater amount of carbon dioxide is released.
It is not wrong to question the reality of global warming, but it is also not wrong to be cautious. The physics is complex but not so complex as to be beyond basic understanding by most citizens. Do we wish to leave a livable planet for our descendants, or would we rather use their potential inheritance for our immediate gratification?
My "Care-O-Meter" just ain't moving for either one.
I completely disagree with the premise of the article. Anna Nicole Smith is more important than global warming.
We can scientifically document the fact that Anna Nicole Smith exists (or DID exist). Can we say the same about Global Warming?
"Scientists" such as Gale Craig, the author of this scientific endeavor.
Where would one obtain a Bachelor of Science degree in basket weaving anyway?
I believe anna nicole smith may have caused global warming.
Have you noticed how much colder the temperature has been since she died? Someone should investigate the connection.
I'd like a $5 million grant from the government to study it.
Kind of reminsd me of the DDT discussion.
OK so everyone doesn't agree that DDT is harmful to the enviornment, what is the harm is banning it anyway? Millions of deaths later, we now know.
I care more for Anna than global warming, because Anna was real, and a tragic example for all.
Don't think, just act. Either adopt global socialism now, or we shall all perish.
Maybe this writer of average intelligence failed to notice that Venus is considerably closer to the sun than we are.
Case closed.
I care about both of them.
and Global warming.
Anna Nichole Smith really existed. She is not a myth; unlike anthropogenic global warming.
I dunno about that, there were parts of her that defied many a scientific analysis.
I can say with 100% certainty that global warming exists. And the major cause of global warming is the sun. And after this colder than normal whether we've been having lately, I can't wait for the sun to be in the sky longer each day and bring us more global warming.
Anna's boobs vs. Al Gore? Sounds like a toss-up to me!
Why, in journalism school, of course.
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.