You-Read-It-Here-First Forum Index You-Read-It-Here-First
A collection of textual novelties
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
If you want to read the articles here, go ahead, just click on a forum and find a thread that interests you...no need to register! If you want to post something... either new or in response to someone here, then click the Register link above. It's free... and it's fun to write your ideas here. You can even create a "blog" by starting a personal thread in the Daily Life Every Thread A Diary section...

Brain Warming and Global Overheating

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    You-Read-It-Here-First Forum Index -> Climate Change
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
brian-hansen
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 712
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Fri Jun 09, 2006 10:03 pm    Post subject: Brain Warming and Global Overheating Reply with quote

In a different thread, you wrote:
Quote:

The earth is warming.

Good.

I like it warmer. I think that we've been living in an unnatural cold snap for too long and it's responsible for humans performing at an extremely sub-capable level.

Our brains are designed for free flowing blood...and they need warm weather to function properly.

I see a vast Renaissance in during the warm centuries to come.

I think your special contibution to this line of reasoning is the "hoop shot"
of "brain warming" leading to a Renaissance! Otherwise, I hope you'll
agree, it is not a novel idea. Not that I'm complaining. Your "brain warming"
theory brings a smile to my face as I apply it in my mind to various
phenomena. So far, it seems unlikely to be true, but it is quite
enjoyable to ponder it further, perhaps the true test of a "hoop shot".

But I recognize the "maybe global warming is good/not so bad"
argument.

I recognize it as one in a series of grudging retreats from defensive
arguments.
Quote:

Maybe it isn't a real phenomenon. Maybe it's real but
not from human causes. Maybe its real and human-caused, but
there is no effective way to mitigate it. Maybe its real and we
could reverse it, but its actually good or at least not that bad.


I see this series of arguments as a sequence of battlements defending
against an attack from without. Defeat, in this metaphor, is being forced
to do something, to make a change, either in the political realm, or
in the personal.

It is impossible for me to know if you've arrived at your argument
as the latest in a series of retreats, or if you arrived at it in some other
way, but if it is via a series of retreats, then I can predict, I think,
where the next defensive positions will be after this one is disposed of.
Quote:

Maybe there is a way to mitigate it, but the cure would be worse than
the disease, or it would be too costly. Maybe we should mitigate it,
but others need to do more than we do. Maybe I should do something,
but I don't know what to do. Maybe I know what to do, but I'm just one
person. Maybe... Okay! Uncle! I'll drive less!


It's nice to be warm. I guess its lucky its called "global warming"
as opposed to, say, "global overheating". It seems to me that you've
got to be committed to a lot of "spinning" (or have a naturally
contrarian bent) if you have any hope of this defensive position
(defending from the necessity of doing something) holding for long.
That's why I suspect that you are actually trolling. Nevertheless,
I don't need to expend much effort to point out: increased flooding,
receding shorelines, over-wintering insect pests, increased hurricane
numbers and strength, reduced snowpack for water supplies, etc.

You are right about one thing. We may need to get used to
it, and perhaps for centuries. I don't think we'll like it that well,
though.


-Brian
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Visit the Instant Postcard Collection @ http://instant-postcard-collection.com
Looking for postcards of that favorite place? Family origins? Or that perfect vacation, except for the photos?
Researching your dissertation? Serious collector? Just looking for something neat?
You've found the right place to add to your existing collection, or to start a new one.
jabailo



Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1273
Location: Kent (East Hill), WA

PostPosted: Sat Jun 10, 2006 1:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I don't need to expend much effort to point out: increased flooding, receding shorelines, over-wintering insect pests, increased hurricane numbers and strength, reduced snowpack for water supplies, etc.


A recent report shows that due to increased flooding and water generally that pollution in the Yangtze has been greatly reduced:

http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2006-06-09T042907Z_01_PEK271557_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENVIRONMENT-CHINA-RIVER.xml

Another recent study has shown that Anartica may have been as hot as 75 degrees. They found evidence of tropical life way beneath the surface:

http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=ARCTIC-ICE-05-31-06

Let's take another view: that of ecology. The ecologist wants to allow nature to be nature -- unimpeded by man. So, now, in some sense, Earth is returning to its more natural, warmer state. Good ecology suggests letting this happen.

Another spin: we assume that our (I think trivial) activities are due to global warming. However, it could be the other way around: warming, by nature, allows us greater freedom to develop and so we are able to build, consume, burn.

The greater the heat, the more blood can flow in our brains, and the more things we can think of.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
brian-hansen
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 712
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 4:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So maybe I do need to expend some effort.

I appreciate the fact that you bring various sources of evidence
to bear, but I still think, respectfully, that your "call to inaction"
(I'm starting to notice a pattern here) is misguided.

If I may summarize your reply, you (1) give additional evidence
why warming might be beneficial, and (2) that the earth's climate
(or at least part of it) was warmer in the past. You oddly claim
that this warmer time was (3) more "natural", and that (4) an ecological
view ("let nature be nature without human intervention" seems
to be the prinicple you ascribe to ecologists here) would be to
"allow" the earth's temperature to rise, as if human activity
had caused undue cooling! Then, I think you may have mistyped:
Quote:
we assume that our (I think trivial) activities are due to global warming

I assume you meant (5) caused and not "are due to".

You finish off by claiming that (6) warmer temperatures can increase
our activities and (7) reiterate the brain warming theory.

***

I think you've made a compelling case that (1) there may be
beneficial effects of global warming. (6) I can imagine more:
lengthened growing season in Alaska, reduced heating bills, etc.

[This might be time to mention that the literature that I am familiar
with uses the term "climate change" as a way to include the effects
of changing weather patterns that can cause some areas to be cooler,
as well as other effects.]

Even if the effects of climate change were limited to global warming,
I think it's pretty clear that the negative effects would far outweigh
the positive ones, as in desertification, coastal flooding, and the other
effects I mentioned in my original post. The fact that we can farm
the arctic and we'll have a whole new set of ocean-view homes on
the (receded) shoreline isn't enough. The cost of "global warming" is
too high to be satisfied with the benefits if there's something we can
do about it. The cost of "climate change" is even higher.

There's no disputing (2). The earth's temperature has changed many
times in response to changing atmospheric conditions, orbital changes,
changes in the strength of the sun, perhaps even a magnetic pole flip.
The appearance of plant life "poisoned" the atmosphere with oxygen!
But, I believe that these kinds of arguments are not relevant. The
overwhelming scientific consensus is that the global warming/climate
change hypothesis includes the notion that the change is caused
by human activity. It is not an assumption (5). No doubt you can find
those who argue against humanity's activities being the cause, but
my impression is that the vast preponderence of scientific opinion now
believes the opposite.

Even if climate change was not caused by
human activity, the argument would not change much. Assuming
that the effects were not good (see #1), and that changes in personal
and national behavior could reduce or mitigate the effects, it would
still be prudent to explore and begin to implement those changes.
The only difference is that we would be "meddling" in nature, and that
our meddling would not be "natural" and might lead to worse unintended
consequences.

What is "natural"? (3) Your argument reminds me of some sf novels
I've read where folks "terraform" some planet or other. If we could
choose a climate for an unpopulated earth, we might choose it to be
warmer, as you suggest for our earth. But then, we wouldn't
populate the seashores if we knew there would be flooding.

I don't know, John. How hard do you want me to work? You didn't
refute the negative consquences I outlined. Isn't it time to move to
the cost of mitigation arguments? Climate change is real. It's caused
by human activity. It's effects are more harmful than helpful to humanity.
Changes in human activity can mitigate or reverse the effects.

As for brain warming, (7) I'd think that there'd be a vast amount of
evidence that would be available. SAT scores correlated with distance
from the poles or with temperatures, scientific progress made especially
at the equator, testing results from controlled-climate hospitals, reduction
in intelligence following energy crises, increased intelligence scores
during the summer, etc. etc. etc.

I'd be interested to see what sort of evidence you find, but in
the meantime, you might want to avoid the outdoors in
winter, increase any exercise regimen, and wear a wool cap
at all times.


-Brian
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
jabailo



Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1273
Location: Kent (East Hill), WA

PostPosted: Sun Jun 11, 2006 6:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I don't know, John. How hard do you want me to work? You didn't refute the negative consquences I outlined. Isn't it time to move to the cost of mitigation arguments? Climate change is real. It's caused by human activity. It's effects are more harmful than helpful to humanity.


I actually am going to ask you to work harder. This is where I think the global warming alarmists haven't made their case.

We agree: the earth is getting hotter..that is, by some general measure climate temperatures are rising. We agree: we see some consequences: the disappearance of glaciers. The new temperate winters of places like Great Britian.

But then you extrapolate and claim (merely claim) that because of this

Quote:
desertification, coastal flooding, and the other effects I mentioned in my original post


You cannot simply itemize every weather result and just say "because of global warming caused by man". It simply requires a whole lot more data and a whole lot more theory to get from A to every negative B.

Quote:
The fact that we can farm the arctic and we'll have a whole new set of ocean-view homes on the (receded) shoreline isn't enough.


Wow, tough audience! I would say that those are great benefits. I would also ask you to take a longer view of the history of civilization. For example, native Americans recorded (orally) extreme weather and earth changes such as earthquakes and eruptions of "domant" NW volcanos. It's just when they happened, there weren't cities of millions living there! Now that the cycle is heading towards activity, what has happened is we've front loaded so that any disturbance can have irreparable harm.

Quote:
Changes in human activity can mitigate or reverse the effects.


I truly believe that Man was giving Dominion over the earth. Look at Holland, how they tamed the sea. I would add a rider to my comments about making the best of it. Yes, and also use our technology to fight it and control it. We do need to protect those people. We should have cities can can withstand or respond to these things. We should have technologies to "ventilate" the heat if it is harmful. I am saying all those things, but, I also feel that there is growing evidence that this hotter earth may be more natural than the very cooler phase that we seem to be exiting. There are vast areas of Canada that could become farmable and liveable. That would be great. [/quote]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Visit the Instant Postcard Collection @ http://instant-postcard-collection.com
Looking for postcards of that favorite place? Family origins? Or that perfect vacation, except for the photos?
Researching your dissertation? Serious collector? Just looking for something neat?
You've found the right place to add to your existing collection, or to start a new one.
brian-hansen
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 712
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 2:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The claims you want me to provide evidence for (negative effects
of global warming / climate change) are the same kinds of
claims (positive effects) that you accept without question. This
shows a bias on your part.

And you ask too much of me. I could look around and find a few websites
giving evidence for negative effects of GW/CC, but you could find
a few others minimizing those. Its not a game I'm interested in playing.
I'm not a climate scientist, and I'm not willing to immerse myself in the
literature. My principal sources are scientific hearsay and my own
limited reasoning ability. You could ask me to prove that DNA is a
carrier for genetic information and I'd be in exactly the same position.

Yet you do seem to be accepting negative consequences and talking
about mitigation, so it seems we are making progress. And I don't
hear you claiming that GW is not caused by human activity. Now its
how do I get from point A to point -B. Well, I'll try a couple:

GW leads to decreased glaciers and ice packs around the world. In
Portland, we rely on snow melting to keep our water supply replenished
in the summer. GW leads to decreased spring and summer runoff
and decreases the water supply. Problem. Can it be mitigated?
Probably, at no little expense. How about for Arizona? At great
expense, if at all.

GW leads to the melting of the polar ice caps. On Antarctica, the
ice resides on shelves, above the sea level. Melting ice increases the
sea level worldwide. Surprisingly, perhaps, there is enough ice to
raise sea level substantially, flooding coastal areas worldwide. I've seen
projections showing devastating effects in places like Florida and many
island countries. Problem. Can it be mitigated? Perhaps, though
at vast expense. Relocate folks from Singapore to the new farmlands
of Canada? Possible. Will Holland's taming of the sea turn into a
retreat? Hard to say. Reasonably likely, I'd say.

GW increases the average temperature of the ocean, and especially
shallower areas, such as the Gulf of Mexico. The strength of hurricanes
is increased by being in the presence of warmer water. The warmer
water adds energy to hurricanes and thereby increases their severity.
Problem. Can it be mitigated? Possibly.

GW changes the temperature on the surface of the earth, changing
where freezing occurs. Many species of pests are currently controlled
because they cannot survive the winter. GW causes a change to those
patterns. Problem. Mitigatable? Probably, at some expense. Some
good points to this? Yes. You and I have outlined some. Does the
good outweigh the bad? In this case, possibly yes, though more likely,
no.

GW causes warming where it is already quite warm. CC suggests that
weather patterns will change in ways that are hard, but not impossible to
predict. For instance, the jet stream seems to be changing in ways
that have not been seen before, in some cases dipping quite low to the
earth. Some areas will get more rain while others will get less. Overall,
it is likely that increased temperatures in vulnerable areas will increase
the tendency to forming/expanding deserts in the equatorial regions.
Problem. Mitigatable? Not real likely, without great expense. Will there
be some "winners"? Most likely. For instance, the west coast of South
America is virtually a desert. Changing weather patterns could increase
rainfall there. I dimly recall a report that Europe might be a "loser" with
regards to this same phenomenon.

***

You encourage me to take the long view. It is quite difficult to know
just what to make of this. For instance, insurance companies are
withdrawing coverage of weather and flooding damage to many coastal
areas. Longer term, we'd all be well advised to factor in the known
risks of clearly established long-term trends. From your notion of
balance that you've presented before, a gradual shift of our activities
and building sites might be no better than a string of catastrophes that
spur us to more decisive action, but it is less painful to those
who are directly involved. If it a catastrophe that we could avoid or delay,
then we have to explore and begin to take action. If this warming trend
were natural and long-term, then we wouldn't be fighting to save Florida
and New Orleans and Singapore. We'd recognize them as lost causes
and move on from there.

You said:
Quote:
It's just when they happened, there weren't cities of millions living there! Now that the cycle is heading towards activity, what has happened is we've front loaded so that any disturbance can have irreparable harm.
Which is exactly my point. We aren't starting with a blank
slate. By an accident of fate, neither you nor I are an unlucky Singaporean,
nor a lucky Canadian farmer. We'll probably get along just fine. In my
view, that does not absolve us of responsibility, especially if the negative
effects are caused by our activity, and reasonable alternatives to minimize
or eliminate our contributions exist.

I'm still at a loss by what you mean by "natural" or "more natural".
How can nature not be natural? Sometimes people use the term
natural to mean as opposed to man-made, but the climate change
in the last 40 million years is not likely caused by humanity.
Perhaps you mean something like "more common" or "more usual".
Even so, it is difficult for me to accept the notion that we should be
pining for the climate of 40 million years, BC, as more natural or
usual to us as humans.

As far as dominion goes, I think that this notion is just as implicit
in my arguments as it is in yours, though we may have come to it
from different sources.

Finally, I have to believe you misunderstood me when you said that it was
great that
Quote:
...we'll have a whole new set of ocean-view homes on
the (receded) shoreline...

These new ocean front property owners benefit from the misery of all
those that previously lived closer to the ocean.

Thanks for a very interesting discussion. I'm not sure how much farther
I can go on it, but I'm willing to try if you've got more light to shed...

-Brian


p.s. I did come across a link today while looking up something else.
you could check out:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Guest






PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 4:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thawing permafrost could unleash tons of carbon


Quote:

This vast carbon reservoir, contained in permafrost soil in northeastern Siberia, contains about 75 times more carbon than the amount released into the atmosphere each year by the burning of fossil fuels, the researchers said in a statement.






http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060615/ts_nm/environment_permafrost_dc;_ylt=AjwCtAuvR82_mfpbh_KMYAOs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-
Back to top
brian-hansen
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 712
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 2:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Though you don't mention it, the implication of this is that GW could
accelerate through a positive reinforcement loop: the more warming,
the more the permafrost melts, the more carbon is released, the more
greenhouse effect.

The part of this that is unclear to me is whether the release of carbon
leads directly to the release of carbon dioxide. I know that it can happen
through burning or even rotting. The rotting of the carbon takes a good
while, I believe, so I wouldn't expect the effects to be immediate.

-Brian

p.s. please be sure to log in before posting, so we can all know who is
posting. Thanks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Visit the Instant Postcard Collection @ http://instant-postcard-collection.com
Looking for postcards of that favorite place? Family origins? Or that perfect vacation, except for the photos?
Researching your dissertation? Serious collector? Just looking for something neat?
You've found the right place to add to your existing collection, or to start a new one.
jabailo



Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1273
Location: Kent (East Hill), WA

PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 12:14 pm    Post subject: 2 -3 degrees to go! Reply with quote

This work seems to indicate we're still below recorded max for world temperatures....not only that, but the high temperature has been reached at last 50 times before (based on ice shelf withdrawal)!

Scientists Work on Map of Climate Change
http://www.physorg.com/news86585073.html

Quote:
Some of the ice shelf's disappearance was probably during times when the planet was 36 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) to 37 degrees Fahrenheit (3 degrees Celsius) warmer than it is today - "much like it will be in the next 50 to 100 years," said Tim Naish, a lead scientist on the project from Victoria University in New Zealand.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
blueberry sushi



Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 7

PostPosted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 12:16 pm    Post subject: Ecologists and brains Reply with quote

First of all, ecologists don't "want" nature to be free of man's influence. Ecologists study the dynamic interactions of biotic and abiotic structures and their processes. Policy-makers and ecologists themselves may then advocate for the application of ecological findings to the real world; this may involve a return to a more "naural state" because of the general homogenization of ecosystems by human activity [1].

This natural state, though, does not preclude human activity, because this is impossible. Rather, most ecologically-based arguments have called for management within the Historic Range of Variability or Natural Disturbance-Based Management, or some variation thereof.

Your argument (Jabailo) about the earth "returning" to a more natural state ignores the importance of spatial and temporal scales. Over millions of years, ecotypes have moved across continents. Humans do not function at the scale of millions of years, generally. We are constrained by our social and economic systems, which often have trouble projecting or planning for more than a few years in advance. Vast ecological disruptions that cause actual vegetative shifts in structure and/or function (different species, more fires, for example [2]) are not "natural" by anyone's temporal or spatial scale, human or otherwise.

Finally, your hypothesis that our brain functions will benefit from climate change have an obvious proving ground. How is brain functioning at the equator? Do you have any evidence that warmer temperatures equal more brain activity? Please cite.


[1] Drever, R.C., G. Peterson, C. Messier, Y. Bergeron, and M. Flannigan. 2006. Can forest management based on natural disturbances maintain ecological resilience? Canadian Journal of Forest Resources 36: 2285-2299.


[2] Lenihan, J.M., R. Drapek, D. Bachelet, R.P. Neilson. 2003. Climate change effects on vegetation distribution, carbon and fire in California. Ecological Applications 13(6): 1667-1681.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jabailo



Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1273
Location: Kent (East Hill), WA

PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 8:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

More evidence of the brain, temperature link:

http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn12713-invention-brain-radiator.html

"Brain radiator

Quote:
In severe epileptic fits, over-excited brain cells fire at such a rate they can raise the brain's temperature in that area. This causes more nerves to fire in a feedback mechanism that makes the fit even worse. One way of preventing such escalating fits is to cool the area of the brain that is susceptible.

So Takashi Saito and colleagues at Yamaguchi University in Japan have developed a heat pipe that is surgically implanted into the affected region of the brain and then connected to a heat sink on the outside of the skull (see picture, top right). This device carries heat away from the affected area, keeping it cool and reducing the chances of severe epileptic fits in future.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Visit the Instant Postcard Collection @ http://instant-postcard-collection.com
Looking for postcards of that favorite place? Family origins? Or that perfect vacation, except for the photos?
Researching your dissertation? Serious collector? Just looking for something neat?
You've found the right place to add to your existing collection, or to start a new one.
Time Clock



Joined: 11 Sep 2008
Posts: 47
Location: Vancouver, WA

PostPosted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 12:39 pm    Post subject: random (unhelpful?) view Reply with quote

I'll offer my opinion -

The global warming theory is difficult to disprove or prove. Last winter was one of the coldest we've had in 40 years. More snow as well.

I'd more readily believe global cooling than global warming.

Nature was created to overproduce and then balance itself out. Why would not the weather be the same? Too many forest fires can change the atmosphere so that it produces more trees. Cooling or warming likely trigger events that in turn reverse the cooling or warming back to a preferred range. (and that range may have room for enough variation to keep things "interesting")

Years ago they were warning us that the ozone layer had a hole in it, caused by man's pollution. The ozone layer's hole is over the south pole, and is only there when there is very little sunlight. Ozone is one of those things that self-regulates. If there is less, that very fact creates more. Although a little ozone is created by lightning (you can smell it after a storm), most of it is created by UV rays striking oxygen O2 creating ozone O3. The ozone layer blocks a portion of the UV range, but when some gets through, it tends to create more ozone as it passes through the oxygen layers.

On the flip side, the south pole ozone hole was being monitored and measured as growing bigger, and after CFC's were outlawed it seemed to stop enlarging and possibly even shrink a little. Keep in mind the ozone hole disappears each spring as it warms up and more sunlight gets through. The change for the positive was that it stopped growing larger every year, and lasting longer into the spring.

When I hear arguments for either side I feel they're grasping at straws, each side only willing to report facts that support their theory, and if there are those with unbiased viewpoints, I don't seem to be hearing them. I suspect also that publicity is a big motivator for those telling either side of the story.

Pollution is an obvious problem, and needs to be prevented. Anything we can do which is being mindful of the effect to the environment - that can only be a good thing. Attention to Global Warming puts pollution in the spotlight, and whether Global Warming is true or not, the belief that it's true produces a positive effect (hopefully) in pollution reduction.

When I worked as a kid pumping gas in the late 70's there was a price hike that had folks trying to save on gas, and one thing they tried was attaching a cow magnet to the gas-line.

50% thought it maybe helped, 50% said not.

Because gas mileage is not static, half the people recorded an improvement, half did not. Some tracked it carefully, some didn't bother and just "hoped it worked".

I think Global Warming is somewhat similar. Some years will be warmer, some colder. In all cases our climate moves around a lot so at any given time we could be enjoying California's left-overs, or Canada's.

I don't mind Global Warming being on everyone's agenda, because I can't see how it can do any harm, and very likely will help motivate us to cut pollution, which, temperature aside, is still a good thing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
jabailo



Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1273
Location: Kent (East Hill), WA

PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 4:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, it's funny since I've long been a skeptic, however, someone recently at Grist gave me a new understanding of CO2 based warming.

As he explains it, what happens in the green house effect is this: light passes through the CO2. Some of it hits the Earth and some of its energy bounces as infrared rays. Now, the infra-red rays can hit a CO2 molecule, and get absorbed. Eventually the CO2 will release the infrared ray, but in a random direction -- up, down, sideways...so some of the CO2 will escape and some will be redirected back to Earth...and again, some will bounce up again...and so on...

Now, my thought on this is that the band of CO2 could also act as a retention system. The analogy I use is a ceramic coffee cup. If I pour hot coffee (the light energy) into the mug, some of its energy goes into the ceramic as heat. However, the ceramic also insulates the coffee, and keeps it warm once it reaches equilibrium. Now a thicker mug, absorbs more heat initially and cools the coffee more, but keeps the coffee at a stable temperature longer than a thin cup.

So what I see is that on the one hand, I could allow that small amounts of increased CO2 in the atmosphere could make a difference in overall earth temperature because of the continual absorption and rebounce.

Another thing I can see is that this layer would even out temperature. As some of the Co2 atoms absorb and release infrared, those infrared rays may also hit yet another Co2 molecule and be spread around the world, from the tropic, light intensive areas, to the temperate and polar zones. And this uneven heating is exactly what we see.

Third, I wonder if there is a saturation point of CO2 where the density is such that a large proportion of infrared rays from light and maybe from the Earth's own heat generators such as volcanoes end up being trapped inside the CO2 band for a long time...just continually bouncing around in there from Co2 to Co2. In that case, there could be cooling of the Earth, while at the same time the band of CO2 super heats.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
brian-hansen
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 712
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 6:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In a lecture series I saw, different kinds of evidence were given.
The most compelling was that CO2 acts as an insulator, and you
don't need an ultra-complex climate model to be convinced that
everything else being equal, increased CO2 *should* act as an
insulator -- like putting an extra blanket on the bed.

Since energy flows into and out of the system must reach an
equilibrium, the surface and the area below the insulating layer
will increase in temperature.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Visit the Instant Postcard Collection @ http://instant-postcard-collection.com
Looking for postcards of that favorite place? Family origins? Or that perfect vacation, except for the photos?
Researching your dissertation? Serious collector? Just looking for something neat?
You've found the right place to add to your existing collection, or to start a new one.
jabailo



Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1273
Location: Kent (East Hill), WA

PostPosted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 4:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is one diagram that has been presented...as you can see (if you accept the premise) it can be a bit more complicated:

http://www.cobybeck.com/illconsidered/images/ghe-ipcc.jpg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jabailo



Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1273
Location: Kent (East Hill), WA

PostPosted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 11:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cooling Your Brain

Quote:
According to research presented Monday at Sleep 2011, the annual meeting of the Associated Profession Sleep Societies, cooling the brain and can reduce the amount of time it takes people with insomnia to fall asleep -- and increase the length of time they stay that way.

To achieve "frontal cerebral thermal transfer," as the cooling is called, researchers Dr. Eric Nofzinger and Dr. Daniel Buysse of the Sleep Neuroimaging Research Program at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine outfitted 24 people -- 12 with insomnia, and 12 without -- with soft plastic caps. The caps had tubes for circulating water at neutral, moderate or maximum "cooling intensity."


http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/13/news/la-heb-sleep-insomnia-cool-brain-20110613
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
brian-hansen
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Mar 2006
Posts: 712
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 2:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jabailo wrote:

Quote:
The fact that we can farm the arctic and we'll have a whole new set of ocean-view homes on the (receded) shoreline isn't enough.


Wow, tough audience!

Farming the arctic seems positive enough, but the fact that someone might come to have an oceanfront property when before it was 10 miles inland? As an audience I'd be a pussycat compared to those people who lived at the (previous) shoreline, before flooding. They are the ones suffering the effects that we need to worry about; to mitigate if GW is not anthropogenic, and to forestall, if possible, if it is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Visit the Instant Postcard Collection @ http://instant-postcard-collection.com
Looking for postcards of that favorite place? Family origins? Or that perfect vacation, except for the photos?
Researching your dissertation? Serious collector? Just looking for something neat?
You've found the right place to add to your existing collection, or to start a new one.
jabailo



Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1273
Location: Kent (East Hill), WA

PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 8:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Global Warming May Make Reptiles Smarter

Quote:
As global temperatures continue to shift, Amiel thinks some reptile species living in warming climates may become innately smarter. In cooling climates, they could become less intelligent.


http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/01/warmer-lizard-intelligence/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jabailo



Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1273
Location: Kent (East Hill), WA

PostPosted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 7:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Iím Not Yawning, Boss, Just Cooling My Brain

Quote:
Changes in climate affect how often people yawn. Researchers in an earlier study asked two groups of pedestrians in Tucson, Ariz., one in early summer and one in the winter. People were asked to look at pictures of people yawning and talk about their own yawning behavior.

The participants were nearly twice as likely to yawn when they were surveyed during the winter, when they could inhale cool air to reduce the temperature of the brain, says the study, published in 2011 in Frontiers in Evolutionary Neuroscience. Participants yawned less when surveyed in the early summer, when temperatures outdoors were about the same as the human body.


http://blogs.wsj.com/atwork/2013/07/16/im-not-yawning-boss-im-just-cooling-my-brain/?mod=e2tw
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jabailo



Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 1273
Location: Kent (East Hill), WA

PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2013 6:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Possible effect of global heating?

How do seniors have the minds of those decades younger?

Quote:
According to the Census Bureau, the number of Americans 85 and older has grown over the past decade from about 3 million to 5 million. Now researchers have reported an interesting discovery about a group called "super agers" who have brains and memories far younger than you'd expect.


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57599790/how-do-seniors-have-the-minds-of-those-decades-younger/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Visit the Instant Postcard Collection @ http://instant-postcard-collection.com
Looking for postcards of that favorite place? Family origins? Or that perfect vacation, except for the photos?
Researching your dissertation? Serious collector? Just looking for something neat?
You've found the right place to add to your existing collection, or to start a new one.
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    You-Read-It-Here-First Forum Index -> Climate Change All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group