| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Environment Forum » Cosmic Rays produce GH gases ?
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Tim Worstall |
 Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2003 7:20 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
An interesting piece in last week's Economist :
http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2265854
The argument, put simply,is that lightning is caused by cosmic rays,
and that lightning itself is responsible for the majority of nitrogen
oxides( and ozone ) in the upper atmosphere.
So, if we could show that cosmic rays were decreasing in number that
would explain the ozone hole, and if they were increasing in number
that would explain GW.
But only one or the other of course :-)
Tim Worstall |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Roger Coppock |
| Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2003 9:05 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Fossil fools must like to ignore facts, they do it so often.
Tim Worstall wrote:
Fossil fool 'anything but anthropogenic' arguments get sillier
all time. One has only to look at the balance sheets for O3
and N2O to match volumes sources and sinks. Put simply, there
is no room for this fictional greenhouse gas source, we know
were these gasses come from and where they go to.
Quote:
So, if we could show that cosmic rays were decreasing in number that
would explain the ozone hole, and if they were increasing in number
that would explain GW.
NO, A PHANTOM SOURCE FOR N20 and O3 WOULDN'T NOT EVEN BEGIN TO
EXPLAIN GLOBAL WARMING!
Let's look at the radiative forcings for various anthropogenic
gases: (Please see: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html)
Gas Forcing (W/M^2)
CO2 1.46
CH4 0.48
CFCs 0.34
N2O 0.15
O3 0.35
------------
TOTAL 2.78
of the total forcing due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions,
2.78 +- .4 Watts per meter squared, N20 and O3 account for 0.15 +
0.35 = 0.5 W/M^2, or just 0.5/2.78 = 18% of the total. These fossil
fools are ignoring 82% of the total!
Quote: But only one or the other of course 
NO, neither.
--
"One who joyfully guards his mind
And fears his own confusion
Can not fall.
He has found his way to peace."
-- Buddha, in the "Pali Dhammapada,"
~5th century BCE
-.-. --.- Roger Coppock (rcoppock@adnc.com)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jim Norton |
| Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2003 9:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Vendicar Decarian |
| Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2003 2:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Tim Worstall" <tcw@2xtreme.net> wrote in message
news:825e2890.0312150420.1708db@posting.google.com...
Quote: The argument, put simply,is that lightning is caused by cosmic rays,
and that lightning itself is responsible for the majority of nitrogen
oxides( and ozone ) in the upper atmosphere.
So, if we could show that cosmic rays were decreasing in number that
would explain the ozone hole, and if they were increasing in number
that would explain GW.
Why would it? To explain something, one must include all of the relevant
factors, not just the irrelevant ones.
The Economist article is fun however, in that it repeats the old myth that
Franklin demonstrated the "electric" nature of lightning by flying a kite in
a thunderstorm.
This never happened of course.
But much of what is written by and for Economists is nothing but Myth. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:02 am
|
|