TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

(also from a Tweet link -- "Planetary surface temperatures determined totally by - Sun distance- Greenhouse gasses - Surface geology. B at")

B

EARTH'S TEMPERATURE surface layer control

Allan Yeomans

It is absolutely necessary that we stop global warming and return world weather to normal before runaway heating becomes firmly established. I argue it's absolutely feasible and totally economical. But first we must remove the manufactured confusion.

The global warming the Earth is now experiencing is caused entirely by the buildup of excess quantities of carbon base greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, principally carbon dioxide and to a minor extent, methane.

No other gas and no other phenomena has any meaningful significance.

Greenhouse gasses act on our Earth like the blankets on a bed. It's as if before the industrial revolution, and at least for a million years before that, we had two blankets. Humanity and human civilization was able to evolve and develop. Through all that time the atmosphere contained around 275 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide. That was our TWO blankets.

The carbon dioxide released by the burning of fossil carbon materials as fuels, and the release of carbon dioxide from the decomposition of organic matter from the use of powerful agricultural chemicals, have increased the levels of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere by near 50% over the last century.

We now have 385 ppm of carbon dioxide in our air. So we are now near THREE blankets. A long term heating process is becoming established.

Decreasing the flow of more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is not our immediate problem. The problem is how to quickly remove that extra blanket before global heating becomes irreversible.

Switching totally to biofuels and non-geological based carbon energy sources is necessary and must be done as soon as possible. But that third blanket will still be there. And its heating effect will probably continue for around a hundred years; if we don't remove it.

With the Earth's surface temperatures, and the Earth's ocean temperatures constantly rising, world weather patterns cannot stabilize. If we don't stop our endless addition of fossil carbon to the biosphere very soon, then weather violence and instability, and lack of reliable weather predictability could likely last a thousand years.

The only feasible, practical and economical option we have is to remove the excess carbon dioxide by converting it into carbon rich soil organic matter.

I see no other option. We have to systematically enhance the fertility of the world's agricultural soils. That was the solution I conceived and proposed and promoted over twenty years ago.

In essence we modify our Western agricultural practices to embrace techniques that remove carbon dioxide from the air in huge quantities.

We create fertile soil. It's not difficult, organic farmers do it all the time. The carbon dioxide gets converted into relatively stable soil organic matter.

We pay our farmers, or issue them with tax credits based entirely on how much carbon they entrap in their soil. It's our only option and the world's last chance to prevent runaway global warming. We must make it happen. The concept of endlessly planting trees and quarantining rain forests is actually counterproductive and illogical.

There are substantial fringe benefits to increasing the fertility of soils. Fertile soil produces healthy and nutritious food, and it tastes better. And generally such food production comes at competitive prices.

The pro-fossil carbon lobby likes to suggest that water vapor in the atmosphere is more significant than carbon dioxide. They also suggest that the internal heat of the Earth might be a significant factor in global warming. Both ideas are not true. We can no longer afford to be mushrooms.

Inside the Earth, 500 kilometres down, temperatures are around 800 degrees Celsius. At the Earth's center they are estimated to be somewhere in excess of five thousand degrees. This heat slowly leaks to the surface and ultimately gets radiated into space. The deep interior temperatures stay fairly constant and are mainlined by slight but widespread nuclear reactions.

Simple arithmetic, and some basic physics tell us that solar radiation ie. the sunshine energy we here on Earth receive, is some two billion times stronger than the heat convected up from the Earth's molten interior. Even if we factor in a highly exaggerated energy up flow from the world's volcanic activity, we find that solar energy is still around 15,000 times more than the heat energy coming up from within the Earth.

In effect we have 500 kilometres of solid rock insulating the surface from the internal heat. The result is that the leakage of this internal heat to the surface is so tiny that it has absolutely no significant effect on the temperature of the Earth's biosphere, and the upper ground for hundreds of metres down.

It does not affect the temperature of the atmosphere, and not in the least the temperature of the oceans.

The temperature of the surface of the planets in our inner solar system is determined absolutely by the composition of their atmospheres. Venus has a thick carbon dioxide rich atmosphere and surfaces temperatures range between 400 and 500 degrees C. Mars has negligible atmosphere and surface temperatures are around -50 deg C.

How does it work? At our Earth's distance from the Sun, solar radiation intensity is 1300 watts per square metre. That's a bit more than the heat radiation from a one bar electric radiator beaming onto every square metre of the Earth's exposed surface.

The majority of solar heat radiation comes in at visible light frequencies. (So our eyes naturally evolved accordingly.)

All objects emit heat as radiation. Emitted radiation frequencies depend on the temperature of the source. Room temperature matter emits infrared radiation. When objects are red hot they emit red light, hotter still they become white hot and emit white light.

The ground is warmed by the visible solar radiation. The warm ground then re-emits this heat as infrared radiation beaming it back into space. The warmer the ground the more it emit. Temperatures correct until outflow equals inflow.

Air, including its greenhouse gas components, is transparent to the incoming white light from the Sun.

But the infrared light emitted from the ground has trouble getting out because greenhouse gasses are not transparent to infrared radiation.

The balance between the visible light energy in, and the infrared light energy out, determines absolutely the Earth's average surface temperature.

Greenhouse gasses can justifiably be thought of as blankets. Those blankets, and only those blankets, determine the surface temperature of our entire planet. In turn it follows that all world weather phenomena are powered ultimately, entirely and absolutely by solar energy.

Now let's consider water vapor. It does in fact act like a greenhouse gas. But water vapor is not actually a gas, it's a condensing vapor. Warm air can hold more water vapor than cool air. As the air cools the water vapor condenses out as rain whenever its relative humidity climbs above 100%.

Relative humidity is the percentage of how much water vapor is in the air, relative, to the maximum the air can hold at any given temperature. And all vapors condense with cooling.

So average world temperatures control the atmosphere's total water vapor content. It's most definitely not the other way around.

The sequence is; atmospheric carbon dioxide levels first determine how much solar heat is trapped. So we get an initial biosphere and atmospheric temperature established. This in turn determines the quantity of water vapor the air can hold. A final temperature then becomes established. And that final average temperature, and all the heat energy retained, in turn controls and determine all world weather phenomena. Ultimately it all goes back to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

The solutions promoted, backed and funded by the fossil carbon industries and countries are based on the argument that; a mere general reduction in total emissions will suffice. That same argument is promoted and supported by most politicians and green movements. One should suspect those opinions are encouraged by the receipt of a steady, but substantial flow of petrodollars.

These groups contend that the world will be saved from “major climate change disasters” by decreasing the rate at which we weave a FOURTH blanket. They also foster the concept that increasing world average temperatures by five degrees, that's five times more than what has occurred over the last few decades, will also, somehow, avert “major climate change disasters”. It cannot and it won't.

Altering the temperature of the massive biosphere of an entire planet usually takes at least a few thousand years. Our massive use of fossil fuels and agrochemicals has started a process that's heating the surface of our planet and destabilizing its entire weather system, and all in a matter of decades. We are now beginning to see the horrendous consequences, on almost every country on Earth.

So we stop global warming, or we let it happen. Oil, gas, coal and agrochemical organizations require global warming to continue.

But surely the choice should be ours?

TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTt

( This was the Tweet -----The carbon tax is not supposed to cut CO2 Just shut you up And also justify a new budget fixing tax See A )

A

The Labor Government threw away money and thus allowed people to buy lots of imported Chinese goods.

They called it a "stimulus package".

So they ran out of all the money treasury held in reserve.

They also promised to balance the budget by 2013.

They therefore need to collect about $20 billion more to get even near their promise.

But more taxes means they loose votes.

Solution: invent a tax and call it"caring for the planet".  And don't call it a tax. Call it a "price on carbon".

On average every Australian, every year, produce about 22 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Our Prime Minister hints at a "carbon price" of $26 per tonne for that CO2.

So 20,000,000 Australians; times 22 tonnes each; times $26 per tonne, and they get the $11 billion extra per year they need. Two or three years collections at that rate and Gillard can claim, and imaginatively "prove" how well they manage the economy. On average, for every Australian man, women and child, it amounts to $550 per year.

Industrial enterprises are not benevolent societies; so their prices for their goods and services, will rise so they can continue to make their five or ten percent on turnover.

Australia's vast middle class, earn a lot more than the small number of rich people in our society. So whose pocket does the money come from?

That's just the money; to make it even sillier, there has never been any marketing research done to even suggest that a "price on carbon" will significantly lower Australia's CO2 emissions. Not one!

So we are expected to pay $11 billion per year to the Federal Government, on Julia Gillard's personal opinion and supposed marketing expertise, that her "tax on carbon ", with no realistic alternative energy available, will stop us using refrigerators - stop us switching on the lights when it gets dark, and stop us driving to work every morning.

She must believe we are all plain stupid.

And yes, she's probably right.