NW Jack

I know someone who has been sick for 6 months now.

I know someone who has been sick for 6 months now, and blames it on the tropics.

The question:http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AiGTG...

The first time I posted this question, Yahoo refused to post it. I am trying again w/o some links.

My answer:

The most important climate change affecting Cambodia is the global increase in fallout.

Cambodia is less affected than other countries, but since this is an ongoing problem, www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1626800/pg1

This could make food from places that are less hard hit sell at a premium on the global market. rt.com/usa/news/cia-gaddafi-rice-libya-936-087/comments/#100381

If earth continues to warm, http://tinyurl.com/6tczx4r

the oceans will become less capable of holding CO2, and will out gas more. http://www.kgs.ku.edu/PRS/publication/2003/ofr2003...

Thus, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 concentration lags the warming of the ocean temperatures by 8 months. Elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations cause crops to grow faster. Since Cambodia is in a tropical location, there will be little warming seen in Cambodia. Since 1979, Cambodia has only warmed ~0.1 Kelvin. Since 1880, Cambodia has only warmed about ~0.7 Kelvins.

Edit @Jushchy: Nice map. It reflects possible changes to do with storms and precipitation, not warming. http://vietnam.resiliencesystem.org/sites/default/...

It also, assesses the impact of a 5 meter rise in sea level! At current rates of sea level rise, that should happen a millennium from now. However, it is ridiculous to assume that the ocean off the coast of Cambodia will continue to rise at twice the rate of the global average, and very iffy to assume that the global average would even to able to sustain the current rate of a foot per century http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/

for that long.

<<According to your link, Cambodia is not effected by Fukushima fallout at all ...>>

The link was to a map of the migration of the Xe-133 from Fukushima 12 days after the crisis began last March. Most people are logical enough to realize that fallout following the Xe-133 would have spread since then.

<<Only where there is abundant moisture and where carbon dioxide is the limiting nutrient.>>

Yes, CO2 enhances plant growth best where there is insufficient water. However, even well watered plants benefit. Take rice for example: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/pr070524z

Yes, Cambodia has poor soil in general, but according to your link, for their rice crop:

"The annual flooding of the Mekong during the rainy season deposits a rich alluvial sediment that accounts for the fertility of the central plain and provides natural irrigation for rice cultivation."

Your hypothesis that CO2 would not help in a nutrient poor soil is intriguing. Do you have a link?

Edit2 @Jushchy: <<Current rates of sea level rise are due to CO2 ...>>

In that case, what do you think caused historical sea level changes? -A

<<Between 1900 and 2000 atmospheric CO2 concentration rose from 290ppm to 360ppm.>>

You seem to imply that the atmospheric CO2 concentration in 1900 was 290, and it gradually rose to 360 ppm by 2000 without going through higher concentrations during the 1940s . The historical record of chemical measurements does not support that notion. The only way to support that notion is by applying unreliable ice core proxies to this period when the actual CO2 concentrations were being actively measured directly from the atmosphere with excellent equipment. -B

<<By 2100 Co2 concentrations may be as high as 1000ppm.>>

Not even your IPCC link supports that notion. With regards to the Xenon 133; Xenon is not fallout. It is a noble gas that is inert, and is not affected by precipitation. Thus, it shows the direction of the wind currents carrying the fallout. Thanks to its short half life, it also shows that there is fallout from a recent nuclear reaction. Measurement of fallout itself depends on reporting from the ground. Beyond that, you read the map correctly. It does indicate that people like you who are unfortunate enough to live in British Columbia would do well to buy agricultural products from Cambodia.

As for well watered rice and CO2, the Bokhari et al. paper I linked to was about well watered rice exposed to 2X, 3X, and 4X atmospheric CO2 concentration. 2X concentration achieved a 38% increase in plant growth. The best growth was at 1154 ppmv, and that was 56%. Since you did not want to read past the abstract to see that it was well watered, (It did ask for $$$.) there is a summary of the results in link (C) below.

<<Obviously, when you were taking you biology class you missed the class on plant nutrients.>>

I take that to mean that you do not have anything to support the notion that CO2 cannot help plants in nutrient reduced soil.

The question: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AiGTG...

My answer:

The most important climate change affecting Cambodia is the global increase in fallout. http://www.amfir.com/AmFirstInst/NonToolbarTopics/...

Cambodia is less affected than other countries, but since this is an ongoing problem, http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message16...

This could make food from places that are less hard hit sell at a premium on the global market. http://rt.com/usa/news/cia-gaddafi-rice-libya-936-...

If earth continues to warm, http://tinyurl.com/6tczx4r

the oceans will become less capable of holding CO2, and will out gas more. http://www.kgs.ku.edu/PRS/publication/2003/ofr2003...

Thus, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 concentration lags the warming of the ocean temperatures by 8 months. Elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations cause crops to grow faster. Since Cambodia is in a tropical location, there will be little warming seen in Cambodia. Since 1979, Cambodia has only warmed ~0.1 Kelvin. Since 1880, Cambodia has only warmed about ~0.7 Kelvins.

Edit @Jushchy: Nice map. It reflects possible changes to do with storms and precipitation, not warming. http://vietnam.resiliencesystem.org/sites/default/...

It also, assesses the impact of a 5 meter rise in sea level! At current rates of sea level rise, that should happen a millennium from now. However, it is ridiculous to assume that the ocean off the coast of Cambodia will continue to rise at twice the rate of the global average, and very iffy to assume that the global average would even to able to sustain the current rate of a foot per century http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/

for that long.

<<According to your link, Cambodia is not effected by Fukushima fallout at all ...>>

The link was to a map of the migration of the Xe-133 from Fukushima 12 days after the crisis began last March. Most people are logical enough to realize that fallout following the Xe-133 would have spread since then.

<<Only where there is abundant moisture and where carbon dioxide is the limiting nutrient.>>

Yes, CO2 enhances plant growth best where there is insufficient water. However, even well watered plants benefit. Take rice for example: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/pr070524z

Yes, Cambodia has poor soil in general, but according to your link, for their rice crop:

"The annual flooding of the Mekong during the rainy season deposits a rich alluvial sediment that accounts for the fertility of the central plain and provides natural irrigation for rice cultivation."

Your hypothesis that CO2 would not help in a nutrient poor soil is intriguing. Do you have a link?

Edit2 @Jushchy: <<Current rates of sea level rise are due to CO2 ...>>

In that case, what do you think caused historical sea level changes? -A

<<Between 1900 and 2000 atmospheric CO2 concentration rose from 290ppm to 360ppm.>>

You seem to imply that the atmospheric CO2 concentration in 1900 was 290, and it gradually rose to 360 ppm by 2000 without going through higher concentrations during the 1940s . The historical record of chemical measurements does not support that notion. The only way to support that notion is by applying unreliable ice core proxies to this period when the actual CO2 concentrations were being actively measured directly from the atmosphere with excellent equipment. -B

<<By 2100 Co2 concentrations may be as high as 1000ppm.>>

Not even your IPCC link supports that notion. With regards to the Xenon 133; Xenon is not fallout. It is a noble gas that is inert, and is not affected by precipitation. Thus, it shows the direction of the wind currents carrying the fallout. Thanks to its short half life, it also shows that there is fallout from a recent nuclear reaction. Measurement of fallout itself depends on reporting from the ground. Beyond that, you read the map correctly. It does indicate that people like you who are unfortunate enough to live in British Columbia would do well to buy agricultural products from Cambodia.

As for well watered rice and CO2, the Bokhari et al. paper I linked to was about well watered rice exposed to 2X, 3X, and 4X atmospheric CO2 concentration. 2X concentration achieved a 38% increase in plant growth. The best growth was at 1154 ppmv, and that was 56%. Since you did not want to read past the abstract to see that it was well watered, (It did ask for $$$.) there is a summary of the results in link (C) below.

<<Obviously, when you were taking you biology class you missed the class on plant nutrients.>>

I take that to mean that you do not have anything to support the notion that CO2 cannot help plants in nutri

State of Washington

If they are not emitted at the same frequency, then are they always emitted in one of the bands that CO2 can absorb, or do they eventually get converted to something that can escape the CO2?

If infrared is captured every couple of meters and re-emitted, then why are clouds so important for keeping the surface warm at night?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Tran...

At night, especially in the open desert, long wave black body radiation is emitted from the ground. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbody_radiation

If there is no cloud cover, things cool off rapidly, and enormous temperature drops happen. It there is cloud cover, things do not cool off so quickly, and more heat is retained for the next day. http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/%28Gh%29/guides/mtr/f...

For a straight shot: 99.9% absorption at 15 micron in 10 meters = 50% absorption in 1 meter. Doing the RMS thing, that leaves 0.707 meters as the thickness of an absorption shell for present concentrations of CO2 at 15um at the surface. For a square centimeter of air, that is 707 ml.

Mass = 0.707 liters * 0.029 Kg / 22.4 liters = .0915% of the atmosphere per absorption shell.

50% absorption Shells = 1/0.000915 = 1092

If emission spectrum = absorption spectrum: 2^1092 shells ~ 10^328 absorptions and transitions on average to exit the atmosphere at 15 um, and there would be no void at that wavelength. I cannot understand how clouds would make any difference if the clouds were low enough that the pressure was still 0.9 atm. Even 10% of the atmosphere will have the photon absorbed/transmitted 11000 times. Redirection by reflection in a cloud by ice crystals and droplets would make no difference if that were the case.

Also, checking my first link, there is a graph there of the outward bound radiation of light from the atmosphere. I notice that the 15 um part is sharply void. If the re emission is at the same frequencies as the absorption spectrum, then why is the 15 um part void?

If they are not emitted at the same frequency, then are they always emitted in one of the bands that CO2 can absorb, or do they eventually get converted to something that can escape the CO2?

If infrared is captured every couple of meters and reemitted, then why are clouds so important for keeping the surface warm at night?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Tran...

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2004/0...

Does anyone understand the new mechanism that allows the warming to be attributed to CO2 works?

Por que sospecha?

Abortion: Obama has given his blessing to using his health care plan to effectively ban abortions.

Stem Cell research: Obama has continued the Bush policy of banning its funding except for specific cell lines approved by the Federal Government.

Gun Control: Aside from saying things and appointing an attorney general who says things, nothing has been done except scare Americans into buying record amounts of guns and ammo, and getting states scared into banning Federal regualtions of gun/ammo sales.

War: Obama has taken Bush's idea of the surge, and applied it to Afghanistan.

Global Warming: Obama used the Copenhagen Conference to kill the Kyoto agreement that Bush refused to enforce, and additionally, Obama managed to kill the conference by out raging the delegates from developing nations through the use of a paper that outlined a plan to prevent them from ever developing. It looked like Bush at his finest.

If there really is some difference, I would like to hear about it.

Consider that:

1) The leader starts with a stable government, and a large middle class.

2) The leader is willing to take his time.

3) The leader wants to avoid instability in the process.

4) The leader wants to build a military empire by conquering other nations.

5) The leader wishes to put the vast majority of wealth in the nation under his control, and does not worry about maintaining the standard of living.

What would be the important changes he would have to make in order?