homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Is "climate change" being used to bring in a global Govenment? (Page 3)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  22  23  24 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Is "climate change" being used to bring in a global Govenment?
Mr Clingford
Shipmate
# 7961

 - Posted      Profile for Mr Clingford   Email Mr Clingford   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's about equilibrium, balance. We are upsetting the balance.

In the past when warming preceded the increase in Co2 (which then led to greater warming), mankind was not putting Co2 etc into the atmosphere. We are now.

Earth is warmed by the sun and planet Earth is insulated from the cold of space by its atmosphere which retains some of the heat of the sun. We are increasing the means by which it retains some of the heat.

--------------------
Ne'er cast a clout till May be out.

If only.

Posts: 1660 | From: A Fleeting moment | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380

 - Posted      Profile for Alwyn     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh [quoting Alan Cresswell]:
Whether CO2 drives global warming requires additional data and interpretation.

You're quoting Alan Cresswell out of context. He wrote:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Whether CO2 drives global warming requires additional data and interpretation. [... he provides details ...] These are the questions, and others like them, that climate scientists grapple with ... and reach the conclusion that CO2 is a major driver of global warming and associated climate changes.

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I'm still waiting.



You're trying to move the goalposts and set up a standard of proof that science cannot ever reach. Using the impossible standard of 'categorical proof', you guarantee that you'll be waiting forever.

--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc

Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
moron
Shipmate
# 206

 - Posted      Profile for moron   Email moron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
More visible evidence of climate change.

quote:
In some places, the ice was 500 feet thick. The huge sheet of ice passed over hills and valleys, bringing with it great loads of rock, gravel, sand, and clay that were ground and scraped from the surface of the land they traversed. Boulders of red quartzite and granite, dragged from Minnesota, Iowa, and South Dakota can be found throughout eastern Kansas.

Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Inger
Shipmate
# 15285

 - Posted      Profile for Inger     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Alwyn,

Thanks for the welcome!

I agree that 'climate change' is a perfectly reasonable term. What is troubling is the way sceptics attempt to suggest some sinister or dishonest purpose behind the change from GW to CC - as in the post quoted below:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

Most, if not all, of these climate impacts are the direct or indirect consequence of increasing temperatures due to very large increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. So, I suppose 'global warming' could cover them, it's just that 'climate change' is much more comprehensive.

Bullshit. Youze changed it to climate change because real science said climate changes and youze can't deal with it and keep funding going.
Myrrh


Posts: 332 | From: Newcastle, UK | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031

 - Posted      Profile for Luigi   Email Luigi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Inger - I appreciated the post, thought it was very interesting. However, it probably won't have much traction with Myrrh and her ilk as you presumably have just shown that you are now signed up to an enormous (and entirely implausible) conspiracy.

Luigi

[ 14. November 2009, 20:40: Message edited by: Luigi ]

Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Glenn
Shipmate
# 6517

 - Posted      Profile for Glenn   Email Glenn   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Schiff#Family

I'm not sure what to make of this. Opinions, please.

--------------------
We are interested in evidence to support that which we already believe.

Posts: 288 | From: The Universe | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Glenn:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Schiff#Family

I'm not sure what to make of this. Opinions, please.

I think you must have posted that link on the wrong thread. Its not got anything to do with the topic of this one.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Isn't it obvious Ken? Don't say your brain has been captured by the pinko-greeno-world-government lizards!

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:


Myrrh, your CO2 Absorption Spectrum link makes some errors that appear intentional. First the graph is labeled wrong in a seriously misleading manner. Second the CO2 spectrums will not be little blocks, they will spread out some just as the black body radiation does.

I don't know what you mean by labelled wrongly. The little blocks I took to be representational, i.e. more clearly seen than a thin line, this is of a type of graphical representation.

I think this is to show only that of the amount of black body radiation produced most of it bypasses CO2 because its bands of absorption are limited to these values.

CO2 anyway is only capable of absorbing a certain amount of heat, after the cut off point it doesn't matter how much heat is thrown at it, it pulls down the shutters and says no thanks.

And, what's the term?, it's not an exponential absorbtion, it's greatest in the first few parts and it takes greater amounts to achieve the same from then on. I'll try and find something on this. But what it means is that if it actually was acting as a blanket it would take what would become impractical amounts of extra CO2 to achieve the same as at the start - say if, 1 degree for the first two hundred or so extra ppm would take 7,000 extra to achieve the second degree rise. Don't hold me to those exact figures, but it's that kind of ratio in the property of CO2. In other words it isn't capable of producing runaway heating by greater amounts.


quote:
Finally (and this might be simple ignorance) the energy in a photon goes up as the wavelength shortens. If the wavelength ever did reach zero, as shown on your linked graph, the energy would be infinite. This is important because much of the actual energy is clustered near the CO2 blocking frequencies.
OK, again I'm not sure what you mean here. I think the graph represents the three frequencies at which CO2 absorbs IR from black body heat.


quote:
In any case the idea is that a small change in temperature brought on by more CO2 is amplified by water vapor which is by far the dominant greenhouse gas. This is because warm air holds more water vapor.

I can't accept that at face value because any warming at all (even a sunny day) would lead to runaway warming if it were true. There must be other factors at play. Until we have a complete understanding of why this doesn't happen, we don't understand the system.

Yes.. What models do is to exclude water vapour except as a presumed figure affecting CO2, not proved even to exist, which conveniently gives an amplification factor to CO2 making doubling of CO2 the culprit for runaway warming. Hence all the scare scenarios from models playing with this, the what happens if we add 20%, 30% extra and so on.

It's been a while since I immersed myself in this and my memory not being what it was.., but he says here:

"Some supposed experts insist that CO2 will absorb and instantly re-emit at the same wavelength in the atmosphere. They are wrong, but if they were right, it would be irrelevant, because instantly re-emitting at the same wavelength is no different from not absorbing at all. No heat is produced."

I don't know why he's saying that's an argument from pro agw's, I think it's an argument for antis. Can't recall the term at the moment, to do with how quickly gases and metals absorb heat and release it. CO2 being among the bottom of this among the metals, water vapour being among the top. What it means is that CO2 releases practically as soon as it absorbs so any exposure to cool conditions, such as higher atmosphere, cold winds, will release the heat and therefore doesn't make it in itself capable of providing 'blanket effect', as greenhouse claims, as it's no more capable of retaining heat than expending it.

I'll try and find something on that too.


quote:


This is where the treaty might be a mistake. Under the treaty we would be legally required to reduce our world population by force. Our large agricultural belts growing wheat would need to be shut down. Northern dry land crops such as oats and barley would be limited while wetland crops such as rice and sugar could continue. We might even need to poison large areas turning them to deserts.

Of course this would be insane, but so was Stalin's deliberately starving his farmers to death. Stranger things have happened when law and politics interact.

....

Still, overall I support the proposed treaty with some modifications and clarifications.

I think since the science is actually junk and deliberately so, no such treaty is necessary. The only reason for it now that it has grown beyond 'mad scientist with an idea' is political control and I for one, family history living under Stalin and slave labour under Hitler, can't see any good reason to give such yet another tool of science to play with, as the US and Germany played with eugenics.


Myrrh


quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
... the science stinks ...

Thank you, Myrrh, for your response. What about:-

1. The precautionary principle

If I'm wrong, I'll look stupid. If you're wrong, and if we don't act, what will happen? Does that bother you?

No, this is too important to bother worrying about whether one looks stupid or not. My research was intense, I first went through this with Alan, and as it was a subject I knew nothing about containing a huge variety of disciplines I knew nothing or hardly anything about, it was a steep learning curve. I did have one advantage, as I see it, I trained as a researcher in a field which knows all about lying with statistics, the rest was hard slog looking up everything I could find about each claim until I had a reasonable understanding of the arguments about it. My conclusion was that it was a scam of huge proportions. Of the kind "Science should be ashamed", what was just fumbling around re the Piltdown Man which took a generation to show it was a deliberate scam by one man, is now organised at the highest level scam here. Thanks to OP that missing piece of the jigsaw falls into place.


quote:
2. The effects of climate change that are visible now

If you search online for 'visible effects of climate change' there are some interesting results, such as:-

As I said on the other thread, I have been through countless such examples. Polar bears can swim, ice floes form in the summer. I have absolutely zero interest in looking at any more of these, you do it. As I suggested, you check out all you can find about these looking at whatever arguments you can find pro and con. Make up your own mind.


Myrrh

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766

 - Posted      Profile for Dumpling Jeff   Email Dumpling Jeff   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Myrrh wrote,
quote:
OK, again I'm not sure what you mean here.
Clearly you are not. The surprising thing is you show so much certainty after admitting ignorance.

You go on to explain how CO2 acts exactly like a blanket (not producing any heat and all) while stating it's not like a blanket at all.

The greenhouse effect is real. Both Mars and Venus are close enough to the Earth's orbit to show us what a greenhouse effect does. Mars is an icicle and Venus is a furnace due to their respective atmospheres. The Earth would be an icicle as well if it weren't for the 40 degrees of warming we get from the greenhouse effect.

The real miracle is that we have a stable climate at all. Nothing the climate experts have said convinces me they know why we do. So it's hard to believe they know how we're messing it up.

But as I said, halting the burning of hydrocarbons is itself a good goal for several reasons independent of climate change. Also developing a workable framework for international cooperation isn't a bad thing. The day may come when we need it for something more urgent than protecting the beaches of the rich and famous.

--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon

Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Myrrh wrote,
quote:
OK, again I'm not sure what you mean here.
Clearly you are not. The surprising thing is you show so much certainty after admitting ignorance.

You go on to explain how CO2 acts exactly like a blanket (not producing any heat and all) while stating it's not like a blanket at all.

What I've given is some qualities of CO2 as already well established by science.

It has a limited range of effectiveness 'as a blanket', some few metres above ground.

It has a limited absorption of heat within that, if it doesn't actually want to go burp it certainly says no thanks to any more.

It expends heat as quickly as it absorbs it - in that it cannot of itself act as any kind of blanket which says that such a blanket is one which hold onto heat longer before expending it. Even water vapour has its limits, precipitating out etc.

Its absorption rate to the amount of heat it holds is not exponential, it takes continuing greater amounts of the stuff to create the same rise in degree of heat it first creates from a small amount. If, check the numbers yourself, I really can't be bothered with this attitude, it takes plus 2-300 extra CO2 ppm to create a 1 degree rise from the heat it can store it will take many more times that to achieve the next 1 degree.

Taken all together, it shows CO2 doesn't have the properties capable of doing that claimed for it.

[/QB][/QUOTE]


Myrrh

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
[description of greenhouse effect on Venus, Mars, and Earth]
The real miracle is that we have a stable climate at all. Nothing the climate experts have said convinces me they know why we do.

And yet they say their theories do, in fact, predict a stable climate (at least in the sense of not expecting runaway heating) so they seem to think this isn't an issue requiring a miraculous explanation.

Earlier you posted:
quote:
In any case the idea is that a small change in temperature brought on by more CO2 is amplified by water vapor which is by far the dominant greenhouse gas. This is because warm air holds more water vapor.

I can't accept that at face value because any warming at all (even a sunny day) would lead to runaway warming if it were true.

This seems to argue that any positive feedback (through water vapor in this case) must result in instability - is this the problem?

[ 15. November 2009, 16:05: Message edited by: Dave W. ]

Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:


Myrrh, your CO2 Absorption Spectrum link makes some errors that appear intentional. First the graph is labeled wrong in a seriously misleading manner. Second the CO2 spectrums will not be little blocks, they will spread out some just as the black body radiation does.

I don't know what you mean by labelled wrongly. The little blocks I took to be representational, i.e. more clearly seen than a thin line, this is of a type of graphical representation.
There's nothing especially wrong with his graph. I'd have added more divisions on the wavelength axis, and it seems to be on a linear scale whereas a logarithmic one is usually clearer. Also, he doesn't give the temperature for the black body spectrum. But, that's nit-picking. Here's a wikipedia page showing the same thing in a slightly better form, with some of the other gases as well as CO2.

quote:
CO2 anyway is only capable of absorbing a certain amount of heat, after the cut off point it doesn't matter how much heat is thrown at it, it pulls down the shutters and says no thanks.
Actually, that's totally wrong. CO2 absorbs IR (which isn't exactly the same as heat), which causes molecular bonds to excite and heats the atmosphere as those vibrations are transfered to motion through collisions with other molecules. While the bonds are in an excited state the molecule won't be able to absorb an IR photon (at least, not at the same energy, some of the other excitation modes may still be accessible), but the bond is only excited for a very short time ... once it's de-excited it can absorb another IR photon.

There is a limit to how hot the total volume of air can get - it's the point at which heat loss (via black body radiation and convection) and energy input (IR absorption) balance. For a given body of air, if you increase the number of greenhouse gas molecules then the amount of IR absorbed will increase. That will increase the equilibrium temperature.

quote:
he says here:

"Some supposed experts insist that CO2 will absorb and instantly re-emit at the same wavelength in the atmosphere. They are wrong, but if they were right, it would be irrelevant, because instantly re-emitting at the same wavelength is no different from not absorbing at all. No heat is produced."

I don't know why he's saying that's an argument from pro agw's, I think it's an argument for antis.

Frankly, to me it's primarily an argument that displays his ignorance. His un-named so-called experts are, of course, talking bullshit. If he could cite anyone who had actually claimed that then I'd be surprised if they had any formal science education beyond school - and, if I was an A level physics teacher and one of my pupils came up with such hogwash I'd be embarrassed because they should know better. The same would be true of some of the other 'esoteric' ideas he demolishes. He can easily demolish them because they're garbage - I've never come across any of them before reading that page!

He does, however get part way there in some almost right statements:
quote:
When radiation is re-emitted in the atmosphere, it moves in all directions. The energy does not move closer to space, because it is not directional. The way heat moves toward the outer atmosphere is either through convectional currents or long wave infrared radiation which is not affected by greenhouse gasses.
He is, of course, right that re-emitted radiation is in all directions. That means that half of that energy is towards space (actually, a wee bit more because the earth isn't flat). And, some of that will be in the part of the IR spectrum with very little absorption by the atmosphere (it'll still be black body radiation). That means that CO2 (and the other greenhouse gases) won't be a 100% blanket. His whole "it's absorbed in a very short distance, so adding more will make no difference" argument is spurious, because re-iradiation is allowing IR to penetrate long distances - even if the path length of individual photons is very short.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766

 - Posted      Profile for Dumpling Jeff   Email Dumpling Jeff   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dave, any positive feedback must at some point be balanced by at least as much negative feedback or a system is unstable.

Since water vapor dominates the greenhouse effect and it's a strong positive feedback mechanism there must be as strong a negative feedback mechanism.

IIRC, water sticks around in the atmosphere for a few days. Any feedback mechanisms need to work on a similar timescale.

One big feedback mechanism is area. Water might be absorbed while air is moving over a warm ocean, only to be dropped as rain when the air passes a mountain range. The far side of the range might thus be a desert.

Thus the ratio of desert to humid climates makes a big difference in global temperatures. More deserts mean less water vapor and less greenhouse effect.

The difference in energy absorption leads to temperature and pressure differences which drive winds, which in turn develop the deserts. The direction these winds move depends in small part on local geography including local land use. Open prairies don't slow winds as much as forests or skyscrapers. Yet how much do low level winds matter? Most of the water is at a low altitude, but how low is low? It gets complicated very quickly.

Alan, thanks for the link to the graph. It is very informative.

--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon

Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Dave, any positive feedback must at some point be balanced by at least as much negative feedback or a system is unstable.

Since water vapor dominates the greenhouse effect and it's a strong positive feedback mechanism there must be as strong a negative feedback mechanism.

Fine - but we know of strong negative feedback mechanisms in the climate system. (The most obvious is that objects radiate more heat at higher temperatures.) And when climatologists account for all the known heat transfer mechanisms, the result is in fact a prediction that does not show runaway warming. So I don't see why you say our current situation is inexplicable - aren't the results of their calculations an explanation?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hiro's Leap

Shipmate
# 12470

 - Posted      Profile for Hiro's Leap   Email Hiro's Leap   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Fine - but we know of strong negative feedback mechanisms in the climate system. (The most obvious is that objects radiate more heat at higher temperatures.)

Another is likely to be clouds. Although their effects are complex and still much debated, they seem to provide a fairly strong negative feedback overall.

Also, does a system always need negative feedback to stabilise? For example, suppose an increase in temperature 1C reduced ice cover by 5%, and this in turn increased temperatures (via albedo effects) by 0.1C for every 1% reduction in ice cover. The positive feedback goes:
  • +1C -> -5% ice
  • -5% ice -> +0.5C
  • +0.5C -> -2.5% ice
  • -2.5% ice -> +0.25C
  • +0.25C -> -1.25% ice
  • ...etc...
Unless I'm missing something, you end up with a 2C temperature rise, and -10% ice cover in a new equilibrium. So not all positive feedbacks cause runaway effects.

(Apologies if that's a bit naive, my maths is very rusty.)

Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
So not all positive feedbacks cause runaway effects.

You're correct; if you apply a positive feedback to an otherwise stable system, it's the size of the feedback (actually the loop gain) that determines whether the modified system will be stable or not.

In your example, an initial rise of 1C causes an additional rise of 0.5C going once around the loop, so the loop gain is g=0.5. The resulting amplification factor is 1/(1-g)=2; whatever phenomenon would have caused a +1C change in the system without feedback, ends up causing a +2C change in the system with feedback.

The formula only works for feedback gains less than 1; g>1 produces sequences which do not converge - i.e., they run away instead of reaching steady state equilibrium.

Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Zwingli
Shipmate
# 4438

 - Posted      Profile for Zwingli   Email Zwingli   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
Also, does a system always need negative feedback to stabilise?

No. In fact, systems which have sufficient positive feedback that they never stabilize if an exogenous change moves them from their initial conditions are very rare, and don't tend to exist for long. The issue is more that positive feedback makes a system much more unpredictable, with small changes having large effects, and some changes being much harder to reverse or to halt once started. In the absence of complete understanding or controlled experiments it is very difficult to know in advance whether positive or negative feedback loops will dominate, and, in the case of climate change, I would guess it is also hard to separate which (or how much of the) changes in the data we collect are caused by positive feedback, which by negative feedback, which are caused directly, and whether or not they can be separated, even theoretically.

<<Crosspost with Dave W>>

[ 15. November 2009, 20:35: Message edited by: Zwingli ]

Posts: 4283 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
CO2 anyway is only capable of absorbing a certain amount of heat, after the cut off point it doesn't matter how much heat is thrown at it, it pulls down the shutters and says no thanks.

Actually, that's totally wrong. CO2 absorbs IR (which isn't exactly the same as heat), which causes molecular bonds to excite and heats the atmosphere as those vibrations are transfered to motion through collisions with other molecules. While the bonds are in an excited state the molecule won't be able to absorb an IR photon (at least, not at the same energy, some of the other excitation modes may still be accessible), but the bond is only excited for a very short time ... once it's de-excited it can absorb another IR photon.
IR (infrared radiation) is heat as commonly thought of, infrared heaters and night vision glasses which pick up the heat. That long wave IR is exciting my molecules may well be what's actually happening when I touch a car that's been standing around in the sun and say ouch that's hot, but the paradigm agw is now built on (later re the now) is that CO2 absorbs black body infrared radiation from the earth and keeps it and gets hotter and hotter driving up the temperature. Though if you say it can't actually absorb this while in an excited state that would go some way to explain the argument that for the most part it doesn't, that IR simply bypasses CO2 as that graph showed, only certain frequencies getting through.


quote:
There is a limit to how hot the total volume of air can get - it's the point at which heat loss (via black body radiation and convection) and energy input (IR absorption) balance. For a given body of air, if you increase the number of greenhouse gas molecules then the amount of IR absorbed will increase. That will increase the equilibrium temperature.
I'll try and get my head around that.


quote:
he says here:

"Some supposed experts insist that CO2 will absorb and instantly re-emit at the same wavelength in the atmosphere. They are wrong, but if they were right, it would be irrelevant, because instantly re-emitting at the same wavelength is no different from not absorbing at all. No heat is produced."

I don't know why he's saying that's an argument from pro agw's, I think it's an argument for antis.

quote:
Frankly, to me it's primarily an argument that displays his ignorance. His un-named so-called experts are, of course, talking bullshit. If he could cite anyone who had actually claimed that then I'd be surprised if they had any formal science education beyond school - and, if I was an A level physics teacher and one of my pupils came up with such hogwash I'd be embarrassed because they should know better. The same would be true of some of the other 'esoteric' ideas he demolishes. He can easily demolish them because they're garbage - I've never come across any of them before reading that page!
Well, I came across it as basic physics when I was looking for the properties of CO2. It's with reference to "heat capacity", managed to find the term again. Basically the amount of heat (let's just call it heat for my poor old brain's sake) it takes raise the temperature of something to 1 degree (lots of different ways of measuring this depending on area of interest). The more it takes to raise the temperature the longer it takes to cool. CO2 is among the lowest numbers for this to the extent that it gets hot quickly and just as quickly releases the heat.

This is what he must have heard about but mistook it for some agw argument because he didn't know what it referred to. I give this as a point for the antis, heat doesn't hang around in CO2. It would take continual source of heat to keep it hot. This, to my mind, shows it's not a lot of use as a greenhouse gas and this plus it has a max absorption plus it's not exponential, but algorithmic, makes it not the not even a driver of global warming.

Specific Heat Capacity

OK here's another page, actually over 4, which begins with an experiment to measure how hot a jar of CO2 gets compared with a jar of Air and goes on,
quote:
Still, CO2 does get hotter than normal air according to the first experiment. So I thought it would be prudent to take a closer look at CO2 and other substances. The following are some specific heat coefficients (J/g*deg. K) from highest to lowest:

Water--4.1813
Methane--2.34
Nitrogen gas--1.040
Oxygen gas--.918
Aluminum--.897
CO2--.839
Carbon--.644
Copper--.385
Mercury--.1395

Notice that the greenhouse gases are high on the list. They absorb heat slowly and lose it slowly. Thus they can prevent heat from earth from escaping to outer space. Water is the highest and water vapor is the strongest greenhouse gas.

Mercury is last on the list. This is not surprising since mercury gains and loses heat the fastest. In fact all metals gain and lose heat quickly. You might say they are anti-greenhouse.

After water on the list, comes methane--another powerful greenhouse gas with a coefficient of 2.34! Then comes nitrogen gas. Most air consists of nitro--HEY! Wait a minute?! After nitrogen comes oxygen? What?!

....


The experimenter neglected to put the jars in the freezer to see which jar would cool the fastest. According to Q = cm(T1-T2), the jar containing CO2 would cool faster than the jar containing air.

On a warm day CO2 will heat up faster than the other air molecules, but on a cold day it will cool faster and lose its heat. So how exactly is CO2 supposed to warm the planet if it loses its heat?

The greenhouse theory proposes the sun's radiation enters Earth's atmosphere in small frequency waves that are not absorbed by CO2. These waves are absorbed by the earth's surface. Longer infrared waves are reflected back towards outer space.

William Pinn Page 3

So CO2 around a coefficient of 1 is practically instantaneous in getting and giving and considering how low a percentage there is of it in the atmosphere it isn't ever very far away from something that'll take it and run. And re the above experiment, I read a post by a disgruntled refrigeration engineer who said every scientist and engineer in his field knows CO2 can't drive warming because of this.

So we come back to Revelle and that he didn't prove it was a greenhouse gas in the first place.


quote:
He does, however get part way there in some almost right statements:


quote:
When radiation is re-emitted in the atmosphere, it moves in all directions. The energy does not move closer to space, because it is not directional. The way heat moves toward the outer atmosphere is either through convectional currents or long wave infrared radiation which is not affected by greenhouse gasses.
He is, of course, right that re-emitted radiation is in all directions. That means that half of that energy is towards space (actually, a wee bit more because the earth isn't flat). And, some of that will be in the part of the IR spectrum with very little absorption by the atmosphere (it'll still be black body radiation). That means that CO2 (and the other greenhouse gases) won't be a 100% blanket. His whole "it's absorbed in a very short distance, so adding more will make no difference" argument is spurious, because re-iradiation is allowing IR to penetrate long distances - even if the path length of individual photons is very short.
Can't see how that is spurious, If a lump of CO2 can only take so much before saying no thanks to another mint how doesn't it matter how far IR travels to get to it? The main black body heat which is IR comes from the earth in this agw model, how far does it get before it itself dissipates and is no longer effective to raise the temperature of CO2 in levels above that which is already saturated? Which would only be a short distance in height, 30 metres or so IIRC.


Now the now. A bit of history from this pdf file of several voices which I found when looking for stuff on specific heat.

quote:
The 1971 version of the climate models assumed the global cooling of the time was caused by particulate matter from fossil fuels reducing the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth.
This was incorporated as a parameter in the climate models, and based on the continued increase in fossil fuel usage, the models predicted 50 years of further cooling!
Suddenly just four years later and in spite of the continued increase in fossil fuel usage, in 1975 global cooling ended proving the premise of the climate models to be wrong.
Somehow Hansen managed to quietly remove this parameter based on effects to the incoming solar energy, and replaced it with a new forcing parameter based on effects to the outgoing thermal energy from the Earth.
He ignored all the physical properties of CO2 and created a parameter based solely on the false assumption that 100ppmv CO2 concentration increase caused a 0.6°C global temperature increase (ignoring the fact that 0.5°C of this was due to natural warming since the Little Ice Age).
This model started the whole global warming scam in 1988, but just a decade later with increases in CO2 emissions continuing, global warming stopped, and all predictions of this revised model have subsequently been wrong. From Norm Kalmanovitch, October 10, 2009

Which neatly reminds me of the OP because Hansen was awarded a prize by the American Meteoroligical Association which has annoyed thousands of its members who do understand the physics and know it's water vapour etc. So what or who is it exactly controlling those at the top of these societies? Who must surely know the physics sucks.


Myrrh

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766

 - Posted      Profile for Dumpling Jeff   Email Dumpling Jeff   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Global temperatures have remained more or less constant for billions of years. This is despite life crawling out of the oceans, super volcanoes spewing greenhouse gasses, and large changes in solar output.

It's my understanding that the recent (in geologic time) ice ages are aberrations and about as far from the normative temperatures as the Earth has gotten. If scientists have a convincing reason for this I haven't heard it.

It might all be a coincidence that the thousands of bits needed to explain the atmosphere all worked out just right for billions of years. If so then that is a miracle. Otherwise we're missing something. Some feedback mechanism needs to exist.

I'm sure the Deccan Traps dumped more CO2 into the atmosphere than we ever did.

Dave W. wrote,
quote:
You're correct; if you apply a positive feedback to an otherwise stable system, it's the size of the feedback (actually the loop gain) that determines whether the modified system will be stable or not.
Dave is pretty much right. What I said was misleading because nearly all real world systems start with a stable state somewhere. This stability is assumed by most people. There is a minimum temperature with no green house effect and a maximum temperature with even a perfect greenhouse effect. Starting from one of these (the lower I would think) one could figure the feedback systems -- at least theoretically.

But as Zwingli points out, figuring out what's what is hard.

--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon

Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Global temperatures have remained more or less constant for billions of years.

I must confess that as soon as I read that sentence I decided to skip the rest of your no-doubt wonderful posting.

No, they haven't. Really.

Well they have in the sense that much of the world's surface has remained in the zone suitable for life - say 0 to 50 - there seems to be a number of big feedback mechanisms keeping temperature in that general area - but there has been a huge amount of variation within that limit.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hiro's Leap

Shipmate
# 12470

 - Posted      Profile for Hiro's Leap   Email Hiro's Leap   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Odd how the only satellite sent up to measure CO2 crashed, so soon after showing what?

You're suggesting scientists spent $278 million and many years developing a satellite and state-of-the-art equipment to track carbon, then deliberately crashed it as part of the global conspiracy?
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It never really occured to me that some people would be desperate to undermine the science because they were seeing a 'global government' agenda.

I'm not sure how representative internet blogs and discussions are, but you see this sort of issue a lot. One of the obvious signs is how often people refer to "UN-funded scientists" - the U.N. plots global domination and anything they touch is tainted by definition. IMO scientists make a mistake by referring to the IPCC too much, and they'd do better concentrating on all the national academies worldwide who've said similar stuff.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766

 - Posted      Profile for Dumpling Jeff   Email Dumpling Jeff   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hiro, the U.N. does "plot" global domination. Coke plots global domination against Pepsi and the Boy Scouts seek to spread scouting worldwide. Everybody wants to rule the world.

These are not secret plots to rule the world. They are what organizations are set up to do. It's their job.

But just as some Coke executives might use dishonest means to advance their sales and thus their own careers, some U.N. people are not above doing the same.

That doesn't make the U.N. bad. It does mean it needs watching just as the Coke company does.

If Coke decides to strong arm Pepsi's distributers, they can be taken to court. If the U.N. decides to fund bad science (I'm not saying any of this happened), there's squat we can do about it.

The difference is in the checks and balances area, not the good/bad area. There are plenty of dishonest people in the world willing to take advantage. A fair number end up getting and using diplomatic immunity.

--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon

Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Odd how the only satellite sent up to measure CO2 crashed, so soon after showing what?

You're suggesting scientists spent $278 million and many years developing a satellite and state-of-the-art equipment to track carbon, then deliberately crashed it as part of the global conspiracy?

Pretty amazing, huh? You'd think they'd just fake the data, a la Capricorn One, wouldn't you?

But anyway, that wasn't the only satellite sent up to measure CO2 - the Japanese had already launched one (Ibuki) the previous month. The calibrations are almost done, and validated data should be available starting January. (Preliminary results appear to be in agreement with Scripps surface measurements.)

Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
IR (infrared radiation) is heat as commonly thought of, infrared heaters and night vision glasses which pick up the heat. That long wave IR is exciting my molecules may well be what's actually happening when I touch a car that's been standing around in the sun and say ouch that's hot

Sorry, I was a bit sloppy and confused heat and temperature. Heat is, as you say, the energy transferred between systems - and includes IR.

When you touch a hot object you're not feeling the IR given off by it (not primarily anyway). You're feeling the heat of the object, vibrations and motion in the molecules and solids of the object are tranferred directly to your hand. Put your hand near a hot object, and you'll feel the heat of the air (directly heated by convection from the hot object, and indirectly by IR) and some IR directly heating your hand.

quote:
CO2 absorbs black body infrared radiation from the earth and keeps it and gets hotter and hotter driving up the temperature. Though if you say it can't actually absorb this while in an excited state that would go some way to explain the argument that for the most part it doesn't, that IR simply bypasses CO2 as that graph showed, only certain frequencies getting through.
The gaps in the absorption spectrum are there because there's no excited state that IR of that wavelength can cause the molecule to occupy. It's nothing to do with no further absoption by an excited state - the states remain excited for such a short amount of time that the effect is negligible.

quote:
Well, I came across it as basic physics when I was looking for the properties of CO2.
Well, in that case you need to find your basic physics from a reliable source. It is not a basic property of CO2 (or any other material) that IR energy absobed is re-emitted at exactly the same wavelength. The energy isn't re-emitted by the absorbing molecule, it's transferred to the surrounding mass of gas and increases the temperature. The warm body of air will emit black body radiation, of course.

quote:
It's with reference to "heat capacity"
Heat capacity is relevant, but the specific heat capacity of CO2 (or other atmospheric gases) is largely irrelevant except to the extent that it contributes to the total heat capacity of the system (the particular body of air). As CO2 is such a small component in air, it's specific heat capacity isn't relevant at all - the heat capacity of air is dominated by nitrogen, oxygen and water vapour in humid air.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766

 - Posted      Profile for Dumpling Jeff   Email Dumpling Jeff   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's not often that I can catch Alan in even a small error, so here goes. He wrote,
quote:
It is not a basic property of CO2 (or any other material) that IR energy absorbed is re-emitted at exactly the same wavelength.
This does happen on a quantum level. It doesn't happen very often, but it is a basic property.

It's one of the things laser designers have to work with. Molecules will absorb energy, then reemit it only at certain frequencies. Usually the absorption happens at a higher energy (energy proportional to frequency) than the emission. But on rare occasions it does happen that they are the same. Often any leftover energy is transfered into motion (or vibration for molecules).

Of course Alan is right that this is a negligible effect in this situation.

Blackbody radiation is the aggregate radiation due to thermal mass. They are the big, wide humps in Alan's link. They are dependent on temperature. The red hump is at the temperature of the sun's surface while the other three are at various likely terrestrial temperatures. (At -60 degrees F. the black one's a polar reading I assume.)

IIRC, energy carried is equal to the square of the frequency for a given spectral intensity. I don't know how the graph has been normalized. Obviously the total outgoing energy is roughly equal to the total incoming energy (on a planet wide basis).

In any case, higher frequencies dominate. Subtracting out much of the water vapor for desert conditions, it can be seen that huge amounts of energy radiate off deserts over 310 K (98 F). Hot wet deserts (due to irrigation) trap far more heat than cooler swamps and rain forests.

This raises an interesting question. How responsible is CO2 for increasing water vapor in the air? CO2 is at the lower tail of the outgoing radiation on the graph. Aren't local climate variables far more influential?

Does this mean warm weather farming in desert regions like the Imperial Valley, the Aswan High Dam, and the Aral sea region far more likely to be culprits than CO2 emissions?

--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon

Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
This raises an interesting question. How responsible is CO2 for increasing water vapor in the air? CO2 is at the lower tail of the outgoing radiation on the graph. Aren't local climate variables far more influential?

Does this mean warm weather farming in desert regions like the Imperial Valley, the Aswan High Dam, and the Aral sea region far more likely to be culprits than CO2 emissions?

To answer that question, Jeff, I think you'd have to make some quantitative studies of the various effects. If only someone would review the relevant papers and summarize them in some sort of assessment report...
(Land use changes are considered along with other contributions to radiative forcing in chapter 2, if you're interested.)

Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Odd how the only satellite sent up to measure CO2 crashed, so soon after showing what?

You're suggesting scientists spent $278 million and many years developing a satellite and state-of-the-art equipment to track carbon, then deliberately crashed it as part of the global conspiracy?
You didn't understand crashed as in crashed data? Although I did have a picture in mind of them shooting it out of the sky... [Smile]


I'm going to give you a teensybit of information here, see what else you can find.


quote:
AIRS - the quintessential greenhouse gas sensor of our time AIRS Data - Available to all

AIRS is a "facility instrument", meaning it is part of the Earth Observing System Facility and there is no Principal Investigator. As such, data coming from the instrument is freely available to all who request it. And AIRS data is truly free. In contrast to data from many other instruments, there is no fee to use the data. In addition, the AIRS Project is here to support the AIRS data users.

That, as you'll notice, is on an archive retrieval page.

And this was posted July 08
quote:
An encouraging response on satellite CO2 measurement from the AIRS Team

Recently we’ve been discussing products from the AIRS satellite instrument
I wrote to the AIRS team to inquire about when the satellite data on CO2, and other relevant products might be made public. All that has been released so far are occasional snippets of data and imagery, such as the short slide show above.

Here is the response I got from them:

Thank you for your interest in the AIRS CO2 data product.

We are still in the validation phase in developing this new product. It will be part of the Version 6 data release, but for now those of us working on it are intensively validating our results using in situ measurements by aircraft and upward looking fourier transform IR spectrometers (TCCON network and others).

The AIRS CO2 product is for the mid-troposphere. For quite some time it was accepted theory that CO2 in the free troposphere is “well-mixed”, i.e., the difference that might be seen at that altitude would be a fraction of a part per million (ppmv). Models, which ingest surface fluxes from known sources, have long predicted a smooth (small)variation with latitude, with steadily diminishing CO2 as you move farther South. We have a “two-planet” planet – land in the Northern Hemisphere and ocean in the Southern Hemisphere. Synoptic weather in the NH can be seen to control the distribution of CO2 in the free troposphere. The SH large-scale action is mostly zonal.

Since our results are at variance with what is commonly accepted by he scientific community, we must work especially hard to validate them.
We have just had a paper accepted by Geophysical Research Letters that will be published in 6-8 weeks, and are preparing a validation paper.

We have global CO2 retrievals (day and night, over ocean and land, for clear and cloudy scenes) spanning the time period from Sept 2002 to the present. Those data will be released as we satisfactorily validate them.

Bearing in mind the brave objectives of information freely available to all initially, why isn't it?

Since their results were at variance with the scientific community, what do you think they mean by having to validate them?(*)

Is this expensive and state of the art data gathering machine useless?

Have the Japanese begun with validated constraints?

(*) It has been since Revelle and Keeling the claim about CO2 measurement, that it is a given it is well mixed, so a 'background' level which can be measured.


Myrrh


quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
IR (infrared radiation) is heat as commonly thought of, infrared heaters and night vision glasses which pick up the heat. That long wave IR is exciting my molecules may well be what's actually happening when I touch a car that's been standing around in the sun and say ouch that's hot

Sorry, I was a bit sloppy and confused heat and temperature. Heat is, as you say, the energy transferred between systems - and includes IR.
Let's clear this up shall we? We seem to be talking past each other here. Heat is IR. IR is heat.

For example, the heat we feel from the sun is IR.

All bodies give of IR, even ice cubes, except something at absolute zero.

Some 49% of the sun's energy is IR. We'd all be very cheesed off if it wasn't.

A human radiates IR to 10 microns, a micron being 1 millionth of a metre.

Agreed?


quote:
When you touch a hot object you're not feeling the IR given off by it (not primarily anyway). You're feeling the heat of the object, vibrations and motion in the molecules and solids of the object are tranferred directly to your hand. Put your hand near a hot object, and you'll feel the heat of the air (directly heated by convection from the hot object, and indirectly by IR) and some IR directly heating your hand.
Or not?


quote:
Well, I came across it as basic physics when I was looking for the properties of CO2.
quote:
Well, in that case you need to find your basic physics from a reliable source. It is not a basic property of CO2 (or any other material) that IR energy absobed is re-emitted at exactly the same wavelength. The energy isn't re-emitted by the absorbing molecule, it's transferred to the surrounding mass of gas and increases the temperature. The warm body of air will emit black body radiation, of course.
If CO2 absorbs IR, which is heat, and as a black body emits IR, which is heat, then it is giving away what it received.


quote:
It's with reference to "heat capacity"
quote:
Heat capacity is relevant, but the specific heat capacity of CO2 (or other atmospheric gases) is largely irrelevant except to the extent that it contributes to the total heat capacity of the system (the particular body of air). As CO2 is such a small component in air, it's specific heat capacity isn't relevant at all - the heat capacity of air is dominated by nitrogen, oxygen and water vapour in humid air.
If it is in a cooler surrounding then it will emit it as quickly as it receives it. Makes it highly relevant to this subject.

Makes CO2 totally irrelevant to greenhouse theory which says greenhouse gases keep heat, IR, longer.

Nitrogen, oygen and water vapour as you say are dominant, they all have a higher heat capacity than CO2, therefore, they will most likely be the recipients, no?

And as you also say, or rather as I'll stress, CO2 is very much insignificant in air.


Myrrh


Alwyn, remembering how I struggled to make sense of this, re the examples you gave, I'd caution you to check thoroughly remembering that science exists as a discipline on the principle that its work is freely available for others. The last couple of hundred years particularly have shown how that has benefitted us.

Those claiming CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we're all going to die horrible deaths because an extra insignificant amount of it has been released into the atmosphere from industry are the same ones withholding data.

This discussion has an interesting exchange re the comparison figs at the top from NIPCC, from a post some way down which begins:

Submitted by Fred (not verified) on Sun, 08/02/2009 - 04:27.
quote:
"Consistency of Modelled and Observed Temperature

Trends in the Tropical Troposphere", by B.D. Santer et al.

Abstract

Using state-of-the-art observational datasets and results from a large archive of computer model simulations, a consortium of scientists from 12 different institutions has resolved a long-standing conundrum in climate science - the apparent discrepancy between simulated and observed temperature trends in the tropics.

Santer

See the reply a couple of posts down.

quote:
Firstly, this paper is not science, it is advocacy. The paper you want that demolishes it utterly is: “An updated comparison of model ensemble and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere” Stephen McIntyre(1), Ross McKitrick (2) here.
Whatever this is, it isn't science.


Myrrh


Whatever it is, it is coming from the top strata of scientific bodies.

Conspiracy (COD) Act of conspiring; combination for unlawful purpose, plot;

That AIRS archived page has a 2003 date on it (fig). Were they releasing data before that? Or was that just a milksop to keep everyone quiet?

Difficult to believe there weren't at least some on the project who weren't open, to say in a letter in 2008 that the data gathered put them at odds with 'scientific consensus'.


Myrrh

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766

 - Posted      Profile for Dumpling Jeff   Email Dumpling Jeff   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dave thanks for that link. It would be more useful if the didn't keep saying that the things I'm discussing have a low level of scientific understanding.
quote:
Other surface property changes can affect climate through processes that cannot be quantified by RF; these have a very low level of scientific understanding. (p 132)
On this we spend a trillion dollars?

BTW, the study only considers stratospheric water vapor (in this chapter, that I saw). I'm not sure why. Perhaps lower level vapor is considered a surface effect?

--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon

Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Alan, sorry, should have left it until later to reply.


"Nitrogen, oxygen and water vapour as you say are dominant, they all have a higher heat capacity than CO2, therefore, they will most likely be the recipients, no?"

Or rather, if they are colder.

And, I'm assuming that until it is radiated heat in a body is potential IR.


Myrrh

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Since their results were at variance with the scientific community, what do you think they mean by having to validate them?

That's simple. They need to check that there isn't some fault with their instrument or processing algorithm, it seems from what they say that at least part of that is to collect additional data from other instruments to compare with their satellite data. If the new data support the satellite data, then they've validated their data. If the different data sets disagree then there is some instrumental/processing effect that needs explanation. There is no point releasing data that's erroneous.

quote:
Let's clear this up shall we? We seem to be talking past each other here. Heat is IR. IR is heat.
No, IR is heat ... heat is not just IR. Heat is energy transfer between hot and cold objects .. it includes convection, direct thermal contact etc. Even your crank site agrred on that. If it was just IR then the fans and coollant fluids in your car are just cosmetic and don't actually do anything.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380

 - Posted      Profile for Alwyn     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
The precautionary principal works both ways.

Fair point. I hope you'll excuse me for replying slowly and for quoting your comments in a different order. I thought I'd start with the point where we most agree.

quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
... if the climate change advocates are wrong we will have cost people their lives work wasted on combatting a nonexistent problem.

It's always possible that climate scientists are wrong. Would the research be wasted? Possibly, but not necessarily. For example, improvements to alternative energy generation could be more useful as the cost of oil rises, even if climate change wasn't happening.

You're right that these measures can involve major costs. As the previous link shows, some (misguided) measures such as growing biofuelds (rather than food crops) can cause serious problems.

Would prevention or mitigation measures be a waste? Energy efficiency can save money. Floods, droughts and hurricanes will still happen, even if the climate science is wrong, so measures to help us survive them will still be useful. For me, a move from our current resource-hungry 'use once and throw-away' society to a more sustainable model would be a good thing, since the Earth does not have sufficient resources to support indefinite growth. Of course, different people will see this differently.

quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
We will have denied freedom to people who deserve it.

Our governments' choices usually provide more freedom for some and less for others. States may choose between, for example, spending money on a new runway for an airport or providing decent bus services. One person's freedom to fly comes at the cost to the freedom of another person who loses the bus service that she depended on.

quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
All of this seems to be being spent to limit flooding in coastal areas. [...]

As you suggested, some areas may benefit. However, the costs of climate change aren't confined to flooding - what about the health consequences, as diseases spread to new areas and the increased severity of hurricans, for example? There seem to be serious implications for the United States.

quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
For all the talk about the poor being most affected, in my view coastal areas are the playgrounds for rich people ...

In some places, sure. Not so much in Bangladesh (Oxfam video) or if you're an African slum dweller (ActionAid report)

quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
... This is a tragedy. But it will be offset by the poor in the interior seeing the value of their land rise.

... for some people, maybe - but I'm not sure how many people who are poor by the standard of Bangladesh or African slum-dwellers will benefit ... not if they live by the coast, don't own land or are struggling to deal with "a new wave of food shortages and rising prices in the developing world".

--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc

Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I didn't have time to respond to everything this morning.
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
If CO2 absorbs IR, which is heat, and as a black body emits IR, which is heat, then it is giving away what it received.

Molecules of CO2 (and other greenhouses gases) in the air absorb IR. The mass of air those molecules are in emit black body radiation. The broad spectrum of IR photons from the black body do not correspond to the discrete photon energy of the absorbed IR. If the air mass has the same temperature as the body that emitted the absorbed photon (the ground near the surface, more often other air masses) then the spectra will have the same shape. If there's a temperature difference then there will be a corresponding shift in the black body spectrum.

quote:

quote:
It's with reference to "heat capacity"
quote:
Heat capacity is relevant, but the specific heat capacity of CO2 (or other atmospheric gases) is largely irrelevant except to the extent that it contributes to the total heat capacity of the system (the particular body of air). As CO2 is such a small component in air, it's specific heat capacity isn't relevant at all - the heat capacity of air is dominated by nitrogen, oxygen and water vapour in humid air.
If it is in a cooler surrounding then it will emit it as quickly as it receives it. Makes it highly relevant to this subject.

You're still not understanding the difference between a large body of gas and the constituent molecules.

The rate at which a large body of gas (or, solid or liquid for that matter) heats or cools is a function of the heat capacity of that gas. If the gas is a composition of different molecular species then the heat capacity is function of the specific heat capacities of those constituents weighted according to their abundance. In air, that means it's dominated by nitrogen, oxygen and water vapour (which is variable). The contribution of CO2 to the heat capacity is negligable because there's so little of it - whether there was 300, 400, 600 ppm CO2 would make no practical difference to the heat capacity.

quote:
Makes CO2 totally irrelevant to greenhouse theory which says greenhouse gases keep heat, IR, longer.
No, greenhouse gases do not retain energy longer. Except for water vapour, their contribution to the heat capacity of air is insignificant. Greenhouse gases absorb IR energy more efficiently than other gases. An increase in greenhouse gas concentration thus increases the rate at which heat is captured by a mass of air. The heat capacity hasn't changed (unless the greenhouse gas is water vapour) so the rate of heat loss from the mass of air won't change for a fixed temperature. So, if you increase heat input and there's no corresponding increase in heat loss the only outcome is an increase in temperature. The warmer air will release heat faster than cooler air, so a new equilibrium temperature will be reached that's warmer than before the greenhouse gas was increased.

quote:

And as you also say, or rather as I'll stress, CO2 is very much insignificant in air.

Insignificant in relation to heat capacity. Very significant in relation to IR absorption.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Dave thanks for that link. It would be more useful if the didn't keep saying that the things I'm discussing have a low level of scientific understanding.
quote:
Other surface property changes can affect climate through processes that cannot be quantified by RF; these have a very low level of scientific understanding. (p 132)
On this we spend a trillion dollars?

BTW, the study only considers stratospheric water vapor (in this chapter, that I saw). I'm not sure why. Perhaps lower level vapor is considered a surface effect?

Well, there's this:
quote:
Radiative forcing from anthropogenic sources of tropospheric water vapour is not evaluated here, since these sources affect surface temperature more significantly through these non-radiative processes, and a strict use of the RF is problematic.
which you would have found if you had read section 2.5.6, "Tropospheric Water Vapour from Anthropogenic Sources".
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I didn't have time to respond to everything this morning.
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
If CO2 absorbs IR, which is heat, and as a black body emits IR, which is heat, then it is giving away what it received.

Molecules of CO2 (and other greenhouses gases) in the air absorb IR. The mass of air those molecules are in emit black body radiation. The broad spectrum of IR photons from the black body do not correspond to the discrete photon energy of the absorbed IR. If the air mass has the same temperature as the body that emitted the absorbed photon (the ground near the surface, more often other air masses) then the spectra will have the same shape. If there's a temperature difference then there will be a corresponding shift in the black body spectrum.
We're agreed that it is heat.


quote:

MyrrhIt's with reference to "heat capacity"

quote:
AlanHeat capacity is relevant, but the specific heat capacity of CO2 (or other atmospheric gases) is largely irrelevant except to the extent that it contributes to the total heat capacity of the system (the particular body of air). As CO2 is such a small component in air, it's specific heat capacity isn't relevant at all - the heat capacity of air is dominated by nitrogen, oxygen and water vapour in humid air.
quote:
MyrrhIf it is in a cooler surrounding then it will emit it as quickly as it receives it. Makes it highly relevant to this subject.
quote:
AlanYou're still not understanding the difference between a large body of gas and the constituent molecules.

The rate at which a large body of gas (or, solid or liquid for that matter) heats or cools is a function of the heat capacity of that gas. If the gas is a composition of different molecular species then the heat capacity is function of the specific heat capacities of those constituents weighted according to their abundance. In air, that means it's dominated by nitrogen, oxygen and water vapour (which is variable). The contribution of CO2 to the heat capacity is negligable because there's so little of it - whether there was 300, 400, 600 ppm CO2 would make no practical difference to the heat capacity.

Exactly.

quote:
Makes CO2 totally irrelevant to greenhouse theory which says greenhouse gases keep heat, IR, longer.
quote:
No, greenhouse gases do not retain energy longer. Except for water vapour, their contribution to the heat capacity of air is insignificant. Greenhouse gases absorb IR energy more efficiently than other gases. An increase in greenhouse gas concentration thus increases the rate at which heat is captured by a mass of air. The heat capacity hasn't changed (unless the greenhouse gas is water vapour) so the rate of heat loss from the mass of air won't change for a fixed temperature. So, if you increase heat input and there's no corresponding increase in heat loss the only outcome is an increase in temperature. The warmer air will release heat faster than cooler air, so a new equilibrium temperature will be reached that's warmer than before the greenhouse gas was increased.
We're still talking past each other.

I'm responding to the common AGM spiel such as these, first two pages I opened and third I searched a couple of seconds to find 'more official' representation of this argument for AGW and CO2 driving global warming:


quote:
"Global Warming
Carbon dioxide contributes to global warming by absorbing heat energy from the earth, trapping it and preventing its release into space."
How does CO2 cause global warming

"Global warming is primarily a problem of too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This carbon overload is caused mainly when we burn fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas or cut down and burn forests. There are many heat-trapping gases (from methane to water vapor), but CO2 puts us at the greatest risk of irreversible changes if it continues to accumulate unabated in the atmosphere. There are two key reasons why.

CO2 has caused most of the warming and its influence is expected to continue. CO2, more than any other cf driver, has contributed the most to climate change between 1750 and 2005.[1, 2, 3] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a global climate assessment in 2007 that compared the relative influence exerted by key heat-trapping gases, tiny particles known as aerosols, and land use change of human origin on our climate between 1750 and 2005.[3] By measuring the abundance of heat-trapping gases in ice cores, the atmosphere, and other climate drivers along with models, the IPCC calculated the “radiative forcing” (RF) of each climate driver—in other words, the net increase (or decrease) in the amount of energy reaching Earth’s surface attributable to that climate driver. Positive RF values represent average surface warming and negative values represent average surface cooling. CO2 has the highest positive RF (see Figure 1) of all the human-influenced climate drivers compared by the IPCC. Other gases have more potent heat-trapping ability molecule per molecule than CO2 (e.g. methane), but are simply far less abundant in the atmosphere and being added more slowly."
Global warming faq

[And they get it from the top:

quote:
"The GISS "SI2000" climate model provided a convincing demonstration that global temperature change of the past half-century is mainly a response to climate forcing agents, or imposed perturbations of the Earth's energy balance. This is especially true of human-made forcings, such as carbon dioxide and methane, which trap the Earth's heat radiation as a blanket traps body heat; thus they cause warming."
Nasa

quote:
Myrrh
And as you also say, or rather as I'll stress, CO2 is very much insignificant in air.

quote:
AlanInsignificant in relation to heat capacity. Very significant in relation to IR absorption.
Very significant re heat capacity in debunking the above claims which base their reasoning and their scientific consensus quite categorically in the presumed effect of CO2 to trap heat.

Hardly of any significance in relation to IR absorption, firstly because water vapour is the dominant absorber and secondly, because CO2 takes in only 8% of the IR spectrum and its absorption is algorithmic and in saturated level stays close to the ground and thirdly, because there's such a ridiculously insignificant amount of it in the atmosphere.

Said Chicken Little's friends, this is not science..

"Trapping it and preventing its release into space"

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a global climate assessment in 2007 that compared the relative influence exerted by key heat-trapping gases,"

"..which trap the Earth's heat radiation as a blanket traps body heat; thus they cause warming."

So,

3rd Law, heat cannot be trapped.

Bearing in mind:

Water--4.1813
Methane--2.34
Nitrogen gas--1.040
Oxygen gas--.918
Aluminum--.897
CO2--.839
Carbon--.644
Copper--.385
Mercury--.1395

Most of the atmosphere is Oxygen and Nitrogen. Atmosphere

21% Oxygen 78% Nitrogen = 99% of the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide is 0.03%

That's not even a fishing net, let alone blanket.

How does that contribute in any significant way to your:

"So, if you increase heat input and there's no corresponding increase in heat loss the only outcome is an increase in temperature. The warmer air will release heat faster than cooler air, so a new equilibrium temperature will be reached that's warmer than before the greenhouse gas was increased."


And for how long?

In and of itself relative to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere compared with the 99% of the atmosphere with a higher heat capacity, i.e. releasing it more slowly than CO2, and that's not including water vapour, and bearing in mind the other aspects of thermondynamics.

And then include water vapour:

quote:
AIRS - the quintessential greenhouse gas sensor of our time

It comes as a surprise to many, but water vapor is the most dominant greenhouse gas in the Earth's atmosphere. It accounts for about 60% of the greenhouse effect of the global atmosphere, far exceeding the total combined effects of increased carbon dioxide, methane, ozone and other greenhouse gases. AIRS advanced technology makes it the most advanced water vapor sensor ever built. Beyond water vapor, AIRS measures all the other primary greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide, the largest source of anthropogenic greenhouse gas, carbon monoxide, methane, and ozone. What is AIRS

Of course, the "largest source of anthropogenic greenhouse gas", is still insignificant in relationship to the amount of oxygen and nitrogen and water vapour...

And to remember:

"Atmospheric CO2 is required for life by both plants and animals. It is the sole source of carbon in all of the protein, carbohydrate, fat, and other organic molecules of which living things are constructed. Plants extract carbon from atmospheric CO2 and are thereby fertilized. Animals obtain their carbon from plants. Without atmospheric CO2, none of the life we see on Earth would exist. Water, oxygen, and carbon dioxide are the three most important substances that make life possible. They are surely not environmental pollutants." - Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Chemistry" and more real education about CO2 on: CO2 is Life


Myrrh

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Myrhh, you seem to be confusing the ability of CO2 to interact with infrared radiation with its heat capacity. These are two very distinct things; it is the former effect which distinguishes greenhouse gases, and which your quotes from the Union of Concerned Scientists and NASA refer to as "heat trapping."

This is rather an important point; the major constituent gases of the atmosphere, O2 and N2, are by contrast practically transparent to infrared radiation. Saying greenhouse gases can't have a significant effect because there are a lot more of these other molecules is like saying the weight of a rock is insignificant because it's in a room with a lot of soap bubbles.

And what is this:
quote:
3rd Law, heat cannot be trapped.
supposed to mean?

And in this:
quote:
This, to my mind, shows it's not a lot of use as a greenhouse gas and this plus it has a max absorption plus it's not exponential, but algorithmic, makes it not the not even a driver of global warming.
Really? "Algorithmic"? Not exponential but "algorithmic"?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444

 - Posted      Profile for Latchkey Kid   Author's homepage   Email Latchkey Kid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:
This, to my mind, shows it's not a lot of use as a greenhouse gas and this plus it has a max absorption plus it's not exponential, but algorithmic, makes it not the not even a driver of global warming.
Really? "Algorithmic"? Not exponential but "algorithmic"?
Is 'arithmetic' the correct word? E.g. The greenhouse effect is directly proportional to the percentage of CO2 (rather than exponentially or quadratically).

Of course, an increase in greenhouse effect that is directly proportional to the increase in CO2 would still be a factor in climate warming.

--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner

Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444

 - Posted      Profile for Latchkey Kid   Author's homepage   Email Latchkey Kid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I will add to my previous post by adding that:

CO2 is a much more effective greenhouse gas per molecule than water vapour, so that despite its much lower concentration it has a greenhouse effect of the same order of magnitude as water vapour, if somewhat lower. This is why changes to its concentration are significant.

When it is said that greenhouse gases trap IR, this is shorthand for saying that they absorb IR (e.g. that radiating from the earth) and transfer the heat energy to the other parts of the atmosphere, including non greenhouse gases such as O2 and N2, by molecular collision.

--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner

Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
And what is this:
quote:
3rd Law, heat cannot be trapped.
supposed to mean?

It's clearly the Third Law of Myrhhmeneutics. Because, the more obvious interpretation that he's talking about the Third Law of Thermodynamics makes no sense. That the entropy of a system at absolute zero is minimum (zero for perfect solids) has no relation to heat being trapped.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633

 - Posted      Profile for Clint Boggis   Author's homepage   Email Clint Boggis   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Myrrh, it's clear to me (and others) that you're confusing CO2's heat capacity (how quickly its temperature rises as heat is applied) with its characteristics as a partial barrier to infrared radiation.

A wire fence in a field may be a barrier to sheep without taking on any characteristics of the sheep. Such a fence may be no barrier to rabbits or mice as they can go through, while people could step over it. Gases filter or reflect varying proportions of different wavelengths of radiation. As Alan pointed out many months ago, it's a simple lab experiment to measure such characteristics of gases; it's well-established, measurable, repeatable and beyond any doubt. I expect it's been done at different temperatures and any effects will be part of the understanding and the climate models.

You also seem to think that because the amount of CO2 is small ("insignificant" in your opinion) that your admitted lack of knowledge on science topics somehow trumps the expertise of those who do know something (or a lot) and you can discount its influence as a serious greenhouse gas in direct opposition to those who know a lot about it.

Some might say that's an odd point of view.
.

Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598

 - Posted      Profile for sanityman   Email sanityman   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Most of the atmosphere is Oxygen and Nitrogen. Atmosphere

21% Oxygen 78% Nitrogen = 99% of the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide is 0.03%

That's not even a fishing net, let alone blanket.

Myrrh, contrary to a previous decision I made not to become involved in AGW threads here, I would offer a couple of things in the hope that they might clarify your thinking. I'm not trying to change your mind, just to offer information, as it appears from your post you misunderstand how the greenhouse effect works.

Dave W. said some good things in his post, but I thought I'd add some more detail to explain why what he said is true.

Although some accounts in the popular press talk about a "blanket," this is a poor analogy. It's not the thermal conductivity or heat capacity of the atmosphere that's the issue, it's the fact that some gasses absorb infra-red radiation and re-emit it. To quote from Wikipedia:
quote:
The Earth receives energy from the Sun mostly in the form of visible light and nearby wavelengths. About 50% of the sun's energy is absorbed at the Earth's surface. Like all bodies with a temperature above absolute zero the Earth's surface radiates energy in the infrared range. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb most of the infrared radiation emitted by the surface and pass the absorbed heat to other atmospheric gases through molecular collisions. The greenhouse gases also radiate in the infrared range. Radiation is emitted both upward, with part escaping to space, and downward toward Earth's surface. The surface and lower atmosphere are warmed by the part of the energy that is radiated downward, making our life on earth possible.[5]
(emphasis mine). It this absorption and re-emission of IR which makes the greenhouse effect work, not anything to do with heat capacity. If you've read the argument about heat capacity on a website, I wouldn't trust that website.

This is relevant to your point about the composition of the atmosphere as well. It's true that CO2 is a much smaller proportion of the atmosphere than Nitrogen or Oxygen, but it's also true that (as Dave W said) they are almost entirely transparent to IR radiation, whereas CO2 isn't.

Light can be thought of as an oscillating electromagnetic field. Infra-red is of the same range of frequencies as molecular vibration, and in order for a molecule to interact with the light's electrical oscillation, the vibration must give rise to an oscillating electrical charge of its own (in molecules, this is called the dipole moment). In short, if a molecule's vibrations can't cause an oscillating electrical dipole, it can't absorb the infra-red light. There's some more information on this here.

Oxygen and Nitrogen are both similar in that their molecules consist of two atoms joined by a chemical bond. The only thing that bond can do is stretch, but because the atoms at either end are the same, that stretching doesn't give rise to a change in dipole moment. They can thus not absorb the the infra-red. CO2 on the other hand is a triatomic molecule, and its bending and asymmetric stretching modes do change the dipole moment. Because of this, it's capable of absorbing IR whereas O2 and N2 aren't.

Although it's only a small proportion of the atmosphere, the presence of CO2 can have an unexpectedly large effect. This is true for a lot of atmospheric chemistry: just look at the effect the very small percentage of CFCs in the atmosphere had on the ozone layer.

You point about water vapour in the atmosphere is valid in that water vapour is a greenhouse gas (as a bent triatomic, all of its vibrational modes are IR active). However, it is referred to a a feedback rather than a forcing by climate scientists. The reason for this is that, if one could remove all the water vapour from the atmosphere right now, it would be replaced by evaporation from the oceans (etc) in around a month. The lifetime for CO2 in the atmosphere OTOH is thousands of years.

I'm sorry if this all sounds like a lot of Chemistry. The problem is that if you want to dispute how the greenhouse effect works you really have to know the background science, or you have no hope of grasping the answer. You could just trust the people that say "CO2 is a greenhouse gas," - but if you don't trust them for whatever reason this is the sort of thing you will have to learn about to verify it for yourself.

All the best,

- Chris.

--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot

Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031

 - Posted      Profile for Luigi   Email Luigi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Myrrh - one of the reasons I find the 'scientific concensus' so plausible is because in the early days whenever I read the debates on the web almost always those who knew the most science were those who backed the IPCC position (see for example Alan and several others on this thread). When a poster doesn't make school boy errors then you gradually build up more trust of their position than those who clearly don't understand some of the very basic science.

The other reason - which is related I know - is that the climate change deniers (for want of a better label) almost never nuanced their answers. Everything was black and white - there was no evidence of 'in this area the arguement is strongest whilst there is greater uncertainty in this area' type of thinking. I cannot remember any of the deniers pointing out the greatest challenges to their way of thinking because accordint to them everything about their opponents' position was rubbish.

This is one (just one!) of the reasons why your position is so unpersuasive.

Luigi

Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Inger
Shipmate
# 15285

 - Posted      Profile for Inger     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There is also the point that the science of AGW has been accepted by every major scientific organisation in the world. There is a list of them available, in case you haven't come across it (not likely, I know).

The scientists in those organisations may not be experts on climate, but they are, I'm sure, quite capable of recognising poor science when they come across it. It's often alleged that this is all about research grants, but if that were the case, it would give scientists in other fields, who will be in competition for a limited pool of money, an additional reason to be sceptical, or at least pretend to be. The fact remains that they aren't.

The latest alarming news.

Posts: 332 | From: Newcastle, UK | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm getting ready for a trip away so unlikely to to be able to respond to any further posts until possibly Wednesday, probably Thursday, next week.

This is a long post, apologies.


quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Myrhh, you seem to be confusing the ability of CO2 to interact with infrared radiation with its heat capacity.

Dave, and others who keep making this point, no I'm not.

quote:
These are two very distinct things; it is the former effect which distinguishes greenhouse gases, and which your quotes from the Union of Concerned Scientists and NASA refer to as "heat trapping."
They certainly are two different things, and both need to be considered here.

But this is not what they "refer to", it is what they claim. That CO2 traps heat and acts like a blanket over the earth driving up global temperatures.

This is a well known position, hence the convoluted attempts to provide an explanation when this is debunked. I gave a link, up the page, to a discussion on this which contained Santer's garbled and data witheld defence of it.



quote:
This is rather an important point; the major constituent gases of the atmosphere, O2 and N2, are by contrast practically transparent to infrared radiation. Saying greenhouse gases can't have a significant effect because there are a lot more of these other molecules is like saying the weight of a rock is insignificant because it's in a room with a lot of soap bubbles.
? Is this what you get from your 'scientific consensus'? That CO2 is this massive rock among teensy weeny nitrogen and oxygen molecules as if the latter only react to CO2?


quote:
And what is this:
quote:
3rd Law, heat cannot be trapped.
supposed to mean?
It's physics.


quote:
And in this:
quote:
This, to my mind, shows it's not a lot of use as a greenhouse gas and this plus it has a max absorption plus it's not exponential, but algorithmic, makes it not the not even a driver of global warming.
Really? "Algorithmic"? Not exponential but "algorithmic"?
Yes, really. Shock horror.

Myrrh


quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Is 'arithmetic' the correct word? E.g. The greenhouse effect is directly proportional to the percentage of CO2 (rather than exponentially or quadratically).

Nope, the word is algorithmic.

quote:
Of course, an increase in greenhouse effect that is directly proportional to the increase in CO2 would still be a factor in climate warming.
If such a thing could be shown to exist. However the agw argument is firstly that it is a driver of global warming which all observable scientific research shows it's never been, its rise in relationship to temperature has had a time lag of c.800 years, over the last 450,000 years or so, see Vostok. So, its rise could be said to be relational to rise in temperature, but not with arithmetic accuracy as you'll see from the graphs, around 800 years is the best we can do. It's dem pesky butterflies.

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
CO2 is a much more effective greenhouse gas per molecule than water vapour, so that despite its much lower concentration it has a greenhouse effect of the same order of magnitude as water vapour, if somewhat lower. This is why changes to its concentration are significant.

Can you show me the science behind this?


quote:
When it is said that greenhouse gases trap IR, this is shorthand for saying that they absorb IR (e.g. that radiating from the earth) and transfer the heat energy to the other parts of the atmosphere, including non greenhouse gases such as O2 and N2, by molecular collision.
We're agreed then.


Myrrh

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
And what is this:
quote:
3rd Law, heat cannot be trapped.
supposed to mean?

It's clearly the Third Law of Myrhhmeneutics. Because, the more obvious interpretation that he's talking about the Third Law of Thermodynamics makes no sense. That the entropy of a system at absolute zero is minimum (zero for perfect solids) has no relation to heat being trapped.
It's saying exactly that heat can't be.


Myrrh


quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
Myrrh, it's clear to me (and others) that you're confusing CO2's heat capacity (how quickly its temperature rises as heat is applied) with its characteristics as a partial barrier to infrared radiation.

? How can something that absorbs something else be a barrier to it?


quote:
A wire fence in a field may be a barrier to sheep without taking on any characteristics of the sheep. Such a fence may be no barrier to rabbits or mice as they can go through, while people could step over it. Gases filter or reflect varying proportions of different wavelengths of radiation. As Alan pointed out many months ago, it's a simple lab experiment to measure such characteristics of gases; it's well-established, measurable, repeatable and beyond any doubt. I expect it's been done at different temperatures and any effects will be part of the understanding and the climate models.
I wish you AGMerrs would reach consensus on what you're saying. Is CO2 a barrier to infrared or does it absorb it?


quote:
You also seem to think that because the amount of CO2 is small ("insignificant" in your opinion) that your admitted lack of knowledge on science topics somehow trumps the expertise of those who do know something (or a lot) and you can discount its influence as a serious greenhouse gas in direct opposition to those who know a lot about it.
And did you get that CO2 was a barrier to infrared from these experts?



quote:
Some might say that's an odd point of view.
.

Some might well...


Myrrh

quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
Myrrh, contrary to a previous decision I made not to become involved in AGW threads here, I would offer a couple of things in the hope that they might clarify your thinking. I'm not trying to change your mind, just to offer information, as it appears from your post you misunderstand how the greenhouse effect works.

Dave W. said some good things in his post, but I thought I'd add some more detail to explain why what he said is true.

Although some accounts in the popular press talk about a "blanket," this is a poor analogy.

It's more than a poor analogy. It is however the 'scientific consensus' that this is what CO2 does.

quote:
It's not the thermal conductivity or heat capacity of the atmosphere that's the issue, it's the fact that some gasses absorb infra-red radiation and re-emit it. To quote from Wikipedia:
quote:
The Earth receives energy from the Sun mostly in the form of visible light and nearby wavelengths. About 50% of the sun's energy is absorbed at the Earth's surface. Like all bodies with a temperature above absolute zero the Earth's surface radiates energy in the infrared range. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb most of the infrared radiation emitted by the surface and pass the absorbed heat to other atmospheric gases through molecular collisions. The greenhouse gases also radiate in the infrared range. Radiation is emitted both upward, with part escaping to space, and downward toward Earth's surface. The surface and lower atmosphere are warmed by the part of the energy that is radiated downward, making our life on earth possible.[5]
(emphasis mine). It this absorption and re-emission of IR which makes the greenhouse effect work, not anything to do with heat capacity. If you've read the argument about heat capacity on a website, I wouldn't trust that website.
I'm not disagreeing with any of that, but it's not what AGM claims for CO2.


To be continued:

--------------------
and thanks for all the fish

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Continued/2


quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
This is relevant to your point about the composition of the atmosphere as well. It's true that CO2 is a much smaller proportion of the atmosphere than Nitrogen or Oxygen, but it's also true that (as Dave W said) they are almost entirely transparent to IR radiation, whereas CO2 isn't.

So? Does that mean they don't get hot?


quote:
Light can be thought of as an oscillating electromagnetic field. Infra-red is of the same range of frequencies as molecular vibration, and in order for a molecule to interact with the light's electrical oscillation, the vibration must give rise to an oscillating electrical charge of its own (in molecules, this is called the dipole moment). In short, if a molecule's vibrations can't cause an oscillating electrical dipole, it can't absorb the infra-red light. There's some more information on this here.
Yes, thank you, I've read about that before.


quote:
Oxygen and Nitrogen are both similar in that their molecules consist of two atoms joined by a chemical bond. The only thing that bond can do is stretch, but because the atoms at either end are the same, that stretching doesn't give rise to a change in dipole moment. They can thus not absorb the the infra-red. CO2 on the other hand is a triatomic molecule, and its bending and asymmetric stretching modes do change the dipole moment. Because of this, it's capable of absorbing IR whereas O2 and N2 aren't.
Yes, thank you, I've also read about that to try and understand the subject. Though I don't have your ease with it, I can get my head around it as it relates to molecules in the atmosphere. Fascinating as other areas in science, if I had time..


quote:
Although it's only a small proportion of the atmosphere, the presence of CO2 can have an unexpectedly large effect. This is true for a lot of atmospheric chemistry: just look at the effect the very small percentage of CFCs in the atmosphere had on the ozone layer.
Oh no, not ozone..! I've heard contrary arguments and I'm definitely not going there..

Hm, this reminds me of a reply I got some time earlier, which author then dismissed the effects of the sun as minute and unimportant in this.

Well, as yet I haven't seen any proof of this effect.


If you're going to claim that CO2 has such a massive effect relative to its amount I expect a lot better than, 'well it does, so there, it's scientific consensus and you're an ignorant nonentity', no matter how politely it's phrased..

I expect some actual proof in the science. (Which I've been asking for, for rather a long time here.)


quote:
You point about water vapour in the atmosphere is valid in that water vapour is a greenhouse gas (as a bent triatomic, all of its vibrational modes are IR active).
And to note here from the AIRS archived data, that they were amazed at the amount of water vapour and knew it would come as a surprise also to the 'scientific consensus'. Then the system crashed.

quote:
However, it is referred to a a feedback rather than a forcing by climate scientists.
And why do they refer to it as such? Because they don't want to take it into consideration in climate models except as a multiplier applied to CO2 in feedback. Yet, oh gosh, CO2 a small fraction of the amount is blamed for all the forcing while all this water vapour is simply ignored.


quote:
The reason for this [referred to as a feedback rather than a forcing] is that, if one could remove all the water vapour from the atmosphere right now, it would be replaced by evaporation from the oceans (etc) in around a month. The lifetime for CO2 in the atmosphere OTOH is thousands of years.
? Sez who? We all breathe CO2 into the atmosphere, even plants at night. And if it hangs around for thousands of years why hasn't there been any change for thousands of years of the earth and us pumping more into it? And if we took all the CO2 out of the atmosphere we'd most likely (I can do IPCC speak), all die of starvation, if we didn't stop breathing first from lack of oxygen.

The actual reason for saying it is this, because CO2 is incapable of doing what those in the 'scientific consensus' says it does. As the main greenhouse gas is water vapour, then if you say another greenhouse gas as tiny proportion of it, CO2, is capable of driving vast global temperature changes by virtue of it being a greenhouse gas then excluding water vapour from creating the same effect is simply illogical.

You're blaming CO2 for driving massive global temperature changes and ignoring the elephant in the room twenty times its size doing the same thing.


quote:
I'm sorry if this all sounds like a lot of Chemistry. The problem is that if you want to dispute how the greenhouse effect works you really have to know the background science, or you have no hope of grasping the answer. You could just trust the people that say "CO2 is a greenhouse gas," - but if you don't trust them for whatever reason this is the sort of thing you will have to learn about to verify it for yourself.

All the best,

Again, thank you Chris, this is what I've tried my best to do and I've already looked at it on the molecular level, and taken it on board.

Myrrh


quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Myrrh - one of the reasons I find the 'scientific concensus' so plausible is because in the early days whenever I read the debates on the web almost always those who knew the most science were those who backed the IPCC position (see for example Alan and several others on this thread). When a poster doesn't make school boy errors then you gradually build up more trust of their position than those who clearly don't understand some of the very basic science.

Well Luigi, in the end it's a matter of physics/chemistry/common sense and logic and so on and not who regurgitates the information that matters. 'Scientific agw consensus' that promotes information on the subject which is at such complete odds with well established scientific fact is, to me, suspect.



quote:
The other reason - which is related I know - is that the climate change deniers (for want of a better label) almost never nuanced their answers. Everything was black and white - there was no evidence of 'in this area the arguement is strongest whilst there is greater uncertainty in this area' type of thinking. I cannot remember any of the deniers pointing out the greatest challenges to their way of thinking because accordint to them everything about their opponents' position was rubbish.
Well again, this is what convinced me, because the arguments were well established scientific facts. I can say the tea cup on my desk at the moment is an elephant dancing, but it ain't. Observably so it ain't and in every scientifical provable aspect it ain't. If climate models exclude water vapour as a forcer of climate change then they are not based on observable scientific fact, ditto if they credit CO2 with more power than it has and don't take in its other characteristics, scientifically established as fact. If CO2 is a blanket driving up global warming how much more so is the blanket of water vapour? 60% of the atmosphere according to the surprised Hal from AIRS as he gave us his final message.


quote:
This is one (just one!) of the reasons why your position is so unpersuasive.

Luigi

And just a few examples of why I'm not at all impressed by 'scientific consensus' in AGW.


Myrrh


quote:
Originally posted by Inger:
There is also the point that the science of AGW has been accepted by every major scientific organisation in the world. There is a list of them available, in case you haven't come across it (not likely, I know).

Well, this is what the thread is about, are these people being used to manipulate a global Government into place? The science behind global warming disappears like the emperor's new clothes on closer inspection, so why are all these backing it? It may have started out as just bad science, Revelle changed his mind, but since then it's been taken up by bigger players on the world stage.

As I've given example, those working in the particular fields from which information is taken for AGW are overruled by the few at the top of their organisations. The example I gave was the American Meteorological Society, firstly in giving its top prize to top AGW promoters while actually in its teaching syllubus which comes from reality grounded meteorologists, debunking the whole thing. Strange, no?


quote:
The scientists in those organisations may not be experts on climate, but they are, I'm sure, quite capable of recognising poor science when they come across it.
Here I think I must agree with you, at least by now they should be capable of this. That's why it's so obviously a con. Mann created his Hockey Stick to order, that's well known history now. That's not science. So why do they promote it as such? And more to the point. Who are they?


quote:
It's often alleged that this is all about research grants, but if that were the case, it would give scientists in other fields, who will be in competition for a limited pool of money, an additional reason to be sceptical, or at least pretend to be. The fact remains that they aren't.
It's amazing what variety of fields can be included in the objectives of AGW when applying, when it's re global warming. [Smile] I don't blame them, if you had an opportunity to be paid to go out and study your life's interest, say geology, and all that was expected of you was to put a paragraph at the end saying how interesting this all is in respect of and maybe it has a bearing on global warming..? But we do get the data, unless of course it has a direct relevance to AGW and contradicts it.

I think what you'll find more of, is that those who do know it's junk science aren't in a position to object even when it's re their own field, because those at the top have control of it. At least that's what I've seen more of.

And you posted:

quote:
The latest alarming news.
Gosh!

quote:
World on course for catastrophic 6° rise, reveal scientists

Fast-rising carbon emissions mean that worst-case predictions for climate change are coming true

By Steve Connor and Michael McCarthy

The world is now firmly on course for the worst-case scenario in terms of climate change, with average global temperatures rising by up to 6C by the end of the century, leading scientists said yesterday. Such a rise – which would be much higher nearer the poles – would have cataclysmic and irreversible consequences for the Earth, making large parts of the planet uninhabitable and threatening the basis of human civilisation.

This means that the most extreme scenario envisaged in the last report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, published in 2007, is now the one for which society is set, according to the 31 researchers from seven countries involved in the Global Carbon Project.

....

Professor Le Quéré emphasised that there are still many uncertainties over carbon sinks, such as the ability of the oceans to absorb dissolved CO2, but all the evidence suggests that there is now a cycle of "positive feedbacks", whereby rising carbon dioxide emissions are leading to rising temperatures and a corresponding rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

"Our understanding at the moment in the computer models we have used – and they are state of the art – suggests that carbon-cycle climate feedback has already kicked in," she said.

Quick, someone explain about garbage in garbage out..

What are we actually observing?

Myrrh


OK, I've found quite a good page which pulls together several of the problems about imagining what CO2 can do and how the climate works, which I'm posting in the hope that it'll be read as it's a good introduction to reality science.

Some facts about greenhouse and global warming

Back to heat capacity for a moment, before I go.

This is an argument against the widely and officially endorsed scientific image for the problem CO2 is said to pose for us, that it is blanket and getting thicker, storing heat and thereby heating the atmosphere and creating global warming. This is the common agw claim as I went through above. It's on practically every agw page, it's taught to children.

This from a page of various major media articles covering the 2001 IPCC report: "Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide prevent heat from leaving the earth, therefore warming the earth's atmosphere, whereas sulphur dioxide tends to cool it." Reports below on the IPCC's Third Assessment Report from: Reuters News service, the Associated Press, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and The New York Times


Which is where the idea of "fence" comes in.

Both these conveniently ignore the actual flow of climate and the properties of CO2. One of the properties of CO2 is its capacity for heat, in meeting a colder body it gives away its heat, one way or another. Look up the laws of thermodynamics to understand what I'm arguing here.

To say that CO2 is like a blanket trapping heat and projecting it towards the earth or like a fence not allowing IR to pass through it is simply inconceivable in physical terms. It is a claim that above this blanket or fence is another blanket hotter or as hot as it is.

Because otherwise CO2 would give away its heat on meeting colder conditions in the atmosphere above it. And quickly, it gains heat and gives it away on meeting colder conditions even more quickly than oxygen.

Water vapour is far more able to temporarily store it (3rd law, heat cannot be trapped, always moves to entropy). Some four times the ability of CO2 and nitrogen also has a greater heat capacity.

There are three basic models in studying thermodynamics of a given something. The closed jar which looks at what is happening in the jar to what is inside with minimum interference from outside, (remember that your coffee gets cold even in a thermos), the jar of something with the lid off with the something exposed to outside and the jar of something with direct action from outside into it, as something being poured into the something in the jar.

Our climate on this planet is of the third model - our atmosphere is not only open as in the second model, but is actively being affected by something poured into it, in our case the sun the major player here through all the levels above it.

So, unless you can prove that CO2 is physically capable of being a blanket or fence in our atmosphere you cannot convince me that you have overturned the laws of physics and chemistry and all.

Of course, even if you could prove such a thing, then you have to prove that this mechanism is capable of melting the arctic and antarctic ice we have now, and, explain why it hasn't played any such role in the forming and melting of vastly greater ice c10,000 years ago, and we do know very well how dramatic that was, and in the ebb and flow of our previous recorded ice ages as shown in the 400+ thousands of years Vostok data, even though, CO2 is claimed by AGW to be, ".. higher now than at any time in at least the past 650,000 years." From the wiki link already posted on Scientific Opinion on Climate Change.

In other words, since the AGW claim is that it played no part in the history of our dramatic ice ages, why is it doing so now, and what did?


Myrrh

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
And what is this:
quote:
3rd Law, heat cannot be trapped.
supposed to mean?
It's physics.

It most certainly is not. The Third Law of Thermodynamics says nothing of the sort, as you could easily have found out for yourself.
quote:

quote:
And in this:
quote:
This, to my mind, shows it's not a lot of use as a greenhouse gas and this plus it has a max absorption plus it's not exponential, but algorithmic, makes it not the not even a driver of global warming.
Really? "Algorithmic"? Not exponential but "algorithmic"?
Yes, really. Shock horror.

Myrrh

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Is 'arithmetic' the correct word? E.g. The greenhouse effect is directly proportional to the percentage of CO2 (rather than exponentially or quadratically).

Nope, the word is algorithmic.

Oh for crying out loud. How can you mistake this:

quote:
Main Entry: al·go·rithm
Pronunciation: \ˈal-gə-ˌri-thəm\
Function: noun
: a procedure for solving a mathematical problem (as of finding the greatest common divisor) in a finite number of steps that frequently involves repetition of an operation; broadly : a step-by-step procedure for solving a problem or accomplishing some end especially by a computer

— al·go·rith·mic \ˌal-gə-ˈrith-mik\ adjective

— al·go·rith·mi·cal·ly \-mi-k(ə-)lē\ adverb

for this:
quote:
Main Entry: log·a·rithm
Pronunciation: \ˈlȯ-gə-ˌri-thəm, ˈlä-\
Function: noun
: the exponent that indicates the power to which a base number is raised to produce a given number <the logarithm of 100 to the base 10 is 2>

— log·a·rith·mic \ˌlȯ-gə-ˈrith-mik, ˌlä-\ adjective

— log·a·rith·mi·cal·ly \-mi-k(ə-)lē\ adverb

Sure, they sound somewhat similar. I could imagine accidently saying one while meaning the other - as a slip of the tongue, perhaps, or when fatigued, drunk, or under sedation. (Hey, they're even anagrams!)

But no one who understood what they meant would stubbornly persist in the error, and there doesn't seem to be much point in arguing about science with someone who can't tell the difference.

Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:
This, to my mind, shows it's not a lot of use as a greenhouse gas and this plus it has a max absorption plus it's not exponential, but algorithmic, makes it not the not even a driver of global warming.
Really? "Algorithmic"? Not exponential but "algorithmic"?
Is 'arithmetic' the correct word? E.g. The greenhouse effect is directly proportional to the percentage of CO2 (rather than exponentially or quadratically).
The word Myrhh was grasping for is 'logarithmic' - the radiative forcing (in watts per square meter, W/m^2) of CO2 is approximately proportional to the logarithm of its concentration. This means that the effect is actually "less than proportional" in the sense that the increase of 10 parts per million from 380 ppm to 390 ppm results in less additional forcing than the same size increase from 280 to 290 - the more CO2 there is, the less each additional amount adds to the forcing.

But the form of the log function is such that it does give equal increments in output for equal percentage changes in input. Typically this is quoted as the increase in forcing for a doubling (100% increase) - according to the IPCC report I linked to above, every doubling of CO2 concentration results in an increase in radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m^2. So going from 280 ppm to 560 ppm would cause an increase in radiative forcing of 3.7 W/m^2, but to get another increase of the same size we'd need to go all the way from 560 ppm to 1120 ppm.

This decreasing effectiveness of CO2 with increasing concentration (which Myrhh seems to think is so fatal to the notion of AGW) is, of course, included in the climate models.

Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Now where to begin? Oh, I can't be bothered. Since what I've said several times about the 800 year time lag in the historical record of CO2 and temperature has been totally ignored, I'm not going to address any of the rest of the garbage just posted by Myrrh. A classic case of garbage in - garbage out. If someone can't even start with getting some very basic maths and physics right, there's not much hope that where they'll take that will be anything other than total bollocks.

If anyone else has any questions about the science they want answered, ask and I'll try. Nut, I've had enough of Myrrh.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380

 - Posted      Profile for Alwyn     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think I know why even the proverbial 'patience of Alan Cresswell' has reached its end. My theory starts with two possible reasons why climate scientists talk about climate change:

Reason 1: Conspiracy
The scientists are under the control of "members of the green movement [who] as communists [...] are creating and exaggerating environmental problems in order to scare the public into allowing the government to take control of and regulate all aspects of Americans’ lives" (source):

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
... those who do know it's junk science aren't in a position to object even when it's re their own field, because those at the top have control of it.

Reason 2: Integrity
As scientists, they prefer telling the truth rather than bowing to pressure from (a) corporate lobbyists whose clients sell fossil fuels or (b) people who believe the conspiracy theory and are trying to shout down climate science.

As Myrrh said, we should make up our own minds. I prefer the integrity theory to the conspiracy theory.

quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I've found quite a good page which pulls together several of the problems about imagining what CO2 can do and how the climate works, which I'm posting in the hope that it'll be read as it's a good introduction to reality science.

Some facts about greenhouse and global warming

Myrrh didn't tell us that the web site that she recommended for 'reality science' (JunkScience.com) is run by Steven J. Milloy. How much can we rely on Milloy's web site? According to the author of a book on critical thinking, on The Skeptic's Dictionary:

"the Junk Science page ... some valid analyses sprinkled amongst its propaganda, but overall the page is deceptive. There's nothing wrong with having a political agenda, and there is certainly nothing wrong with being concerned that the government is spending its resources on the wrong projects, and there is nothing wrong with being critical of the work of scientists, but there is something wrong with pretending to care about science and truth, while labeling scientists who produce work contrary to your agenda as doing junk science"

How does Milloy use this term 'junk science'?

"an editorial in the American Journal of Public Health noted that "... attacking the science underlying difficult public policy decisions with the label of 'junk' has become a common ploy for those opposed to regulation. One need only peruse JunkScience.com to get a sense of the long list of public health issues for which research has been so labeled." (source)

So why has even Alan's legendary patience been sorely tested? Because it's not really about the science. It's about politics, conspiracy theories and corporate lobbyists.

[ 19. November 2009, 08:32: Message edited by: Alwyn ]

--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc

Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598

 - Posted      Profile for sanityman   Email sanityman   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm left a little [Confused] by this, as well as amazed that Alan et al. have had the patience they have up until this point. Myrrh, I simply cannot understand how you say you know the explanation for why CO2 absorbs IR and O2 and N2 are transparent to it, but then go on to say that the Wikipedia entry is "not what AGM claims for CO2." (Did you mean AGW?).

To quote from wiki again,
quote:
The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824, first reliably experimented on by John Tyndall in 1858, and first reported quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.
This is old science. Not wacky, new, unproved science, but accepted, undergraduate textbook level science. If you say you accept this, then congratulations, you understand the greenhouse effect, and can safely ignore any fringe website that tries to tell you it works differently. But your statement that it's not how climate scientists understand it is, I'm afraid, just wrong. It's too basic to be controversial.

I'm not writing to try to slight you or your understanding. To be honest, I think it must be horribly difficult for someone without a scientific degree to get to grips with the subject of climate change, because there's so much misinformation around, a lot of it in the popular press. I'm afraid to say that the general level of science reporting in the UK is awful, and it's very easy to be misled if you don't already know that a lot of what they're saying is wrong. Then there's the internet, where anyone with an axe to grind can and does set up a website. Trying to find good information is hard, which is why I tried to give the background that I did (of course, I'm just another guy on a website, but there you go).

The thing is, you seem to be very sure that you know how AGW works, and why its wrong. However, anyone with a science background here seems to be telling you that you've actually misunderstood the underlying, basic science behind it. There are legitimate areas of uncertainty and limits to our knowledge, but the areas you are attacking just aren't one of them. Alan and the others weren't trying to defend climate scientists to much as just basic (degree level) chemistry and physics. There's no shame in not knowing degree level chemistry if you haven't got a degree in it, but being so aggressively dismissive of people who do, and are trying to explain something they are qualified in, leave me genuinely puzzled. Would you do the same to someone with a French degree, or English Literature?

As an aside, I'm sorry you took my remark about how seemingly small amounts of gas can make a big difference personally. I took a course in atmospheric chemistry, and this was one of the points that stood out for me: that my intuitive understanding of quantities could lead me to wrong conclusions. I was not trying to say you're "an ignorant nonentity," just pointing out that our intuitions about what we think is "too small" aren't always correct.

Reading back in your posts, it seems that the description of the atmosphere as a "blanket" is a real problem for you, especially as it has been used as an illustration by people explaining climate science, such as the NASA quote "trap the Earth's heat radiation as a blanket traps body heat" that you mentioned.

Here's a very important point: that was just a simile. As with most similies, it has things which are the same (trapping heat) and things which are not (the mechanism by which heat is trapped, in this case). Trying to infer that the greenhouse effect is exactly like a blanket is going to get you in trouble, as it seems to have done. The actual scientists are just fishing for metaphors or images to describe the science to the general public, and scientists aren't always very good communicators (as I'm sure you will have realised!).

The scientists do not believe in the 'blanket.' The scientists believe the science, which you can get in places like the wiki article (I'm not trying to make you read realClimate here, just Wikipedia!). I'm sorry the 'blanket' picture is one which has proved so misleading and difficult for you, but please don't insist that that what scientists 'believe,' because I can guarantee you that's not true. If taken literally, they would all agree it makes no sense[*]!

All the best,

- Chris.

--
[*] the blankets that I know work by trapping air and thus inhibiting convection. If you're talking about a planet, stopping convection makes no sense - what's the atmosphere going to do, convect away? [Smile]

--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot

Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  22  23  24 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools