It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Earth Should Be Cooling. My Question to ATS: Why Isn't It?

page: 7
15
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 01:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: paradoxious
The problem is not so much heat being produced. The Sun heats the surface of the Earth far (far) more than human activity does.

The problem is that heat being trapped in the atmosphere.
So it's heat being re-radiated by the Earth's surface AND heat produced by humans living on Earth's surface along with the CO2 emissions that accompany that?

So, I'd expect the heat generated by Humans on Earth to at least grow by the same or a similar factor scaled along with population growth.



edit on 26-4-2015 by paradoxious because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 02:01 AM
link   
a reply to: paradoxious
Well, yes. But the heat produced by human activity doesn't really count for much in comparison to solar heating.



edit on 4/26/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 02:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: paradoxious
Well, yes. But the heat produced by human activity doesn't really count for much in comparison to solar heating.


So human activity doesn't really count, with regards to the heat we generate, but the CO2 from the heat we generate does count?



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 02:27 AM
link   
a reply to: paradoxious

Yes.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 02:54 AM
link   
So heat from insolence has to hit the ground and be re-radiated before it counts, and heat we generate here doesn't count at all....

... but the CO2 we generate in the process of making that heat is important.


... are you not getting it yet?



edit on 26-4-2015 by paradoxious because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 02:55 AM
link   
a reply to: paradoxious

and heat we generate here doesn't count at all....
Not in comparison to solar insolation.



... are you not getting it yet?
I guess not. Can you state your point plainly instead of apparently playing games?
edit on 4/26/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 04:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

What a # thread. No information about the subject or any background.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 05:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Hi Kali. My simple short answer to Your Awesome Question is this: Because Mother Earth is a Living Breathing Entity.

The longer answer to Your question may be forthcoming, if I can ever get woke up here!

I've Been pouring Coffee Down My Gullet now for a while and so far it has not kicked in suficiantly enough,
to assist My Mental Facilities in the neccessary Synaptical activity for developing the word stream to create it!
( I know that was a long winded reply, but that's different. LOL!!)

Good Thread here! I Love the Topic! Nice one!!


(BTW, I have been enjoying Your reply's, that I have noticed and read, Here at ATS. You are an Asset to US all!)

Syx...



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 07:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: paradoxious
So heat from insolence has to hit the ground and be re-radiated before it counts, and heat we generate here doesn't count at all....

... but the CO2 we generate in the process of making that heat is important.


... are you not getting it yet?




I see what your getting at i think how can CO2 be counted but not the heat mankind creates. Well alot of that has to do with physics and statistical analysis. Phage is right the amount of energy the sun is hitting our planet with far outways anything we produce. What that means its like throwing a bucket of water in the ocean.An estimate would be about 12.2 trillion watt-hours per square mile per year, assuming say 1 square foot receives about 100 watts per hour in full sunlight. But Co2 it takes much smaller quantities to affect our atmospheres composition. Though i will say yes Co2 is a greenhouse gas most are actually. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation in three narrow bands of frequencies, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM). This means that most of the heat producing radiation escapes it. With this im wondering if It makes as big a difference as we think it does. Sorry going off on one of my tangents but any way i just realized after about 20 meters of atmosphere the reradiated IR wouldn't exist. Ill get back to you guys but i think i just discovered a problem with global warming.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: SyxPak

I appreciate the compliment, thank-you


Spiritually, I'm inclined to agree with you but that said... the build up of CO2 in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution has nothing to do with Earth breathing, different sources of CO2 have different signatures. The CO2 molecules from a volcano or a dying tree actually look different than CO2 molecules from burning oil. We are in fact able to tell that CO2 build-up in the atmosphere is from burning fossil fuels.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: superman2012


Why do you trust the scientists whom you agree with? What makes them more trustworthy than the ones that don't agree with Al Gore?


Good question.

For starters: because the vast majority of “the ones that don't agree with Al Gore” are not climate scientists. See this thread for more info: Oh About Those 32,000 "Leading Scientists" Against Global Climate Change.

Then, because the tiny few remaining skeptics who actually are real climate scientists all seem to be extremely politically motivated or actual paid shills. See for example threads like these:

Famous Global Warming Skeptic Scientist admits "40 percent" of his funding comes from Big Oil

Editor-In-Chief Resigns, Blows Gaping Hole In Climate Denier Alarmism

Gov't Climate Researcher Exposed for Hiding Funds...So Breitbart Jumps to His Rescue?

But if that’s not good enough for you, then just go ahead and name some right now. I’ll bet you the card carrying conspiracy theorist in me can dig up solid evidence of their shady connections right here on the spot. It’s normally just that easy lol.



More than anything though, it’s the science itself. Al Gore didn't invent it. As already pointed out – this has all been going on for more than 150 years. There were real skeptic scientists very involved once too, and they had valid objections at the time. Knut Ångström was one – his dad was one of the most famous physicists who ever lived, and from everything I understand Knut was a fine one himself. These scientists argued the subject out in proper forums for a long time: through peer review and academic debate (not blog posts and political mudslinging).

Over the last 150 years those valid objections were meticulously resolved and satisfied to the point that the vast majority of legitimate climate experts now agree man made emissions are doing exactly what was first predicted way before Al Gore was even born.

When people genuinely want to learn more about the subject, rather than just encouraging them to read up on the science (which can get complicated and easily derailed/manipulated by bad sources), I prefer to invite them to read up on the history of the science. This is a great link for that: The Discovery of Global Warming

It presents the story in a much more straightforward and balanced context.

You actually seem pretty open-minded about it, so I apologize for the boneheaded comment from before. It’s a muscle memory reaction because this discussion is usually dominated by trolls who “question” the science not for the sake of constructive dialogue (or god forbid learning something), but just to derail every meaningful point made against their shaky political and/or conspiracy beliefs.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheCretinHop
Uh because we are facing abnormal droughts. I see them everyday firsthand in Northern California. The food basket of your country. If there's no water...no food. Nio food, starving people. It's a serious issue. Stop watching football and TV, go outside, read a book and get genuinely cultured on what's happening, a reply to: VoidHawk


If you knew what you were talking about you'd know I do not watch football or the Cretin box!
"Food basket of my country" Again your wrong! I'm in the uk and I only eat local organic food.

"Abnormal droughts"
Says who? Who is it that knows the weather cycles eh? At this point in time its all theory and guesses!

Stop listening to bs.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared

Thanks for the information! Great starting point for me to read and investigate more, I appreciate that!

Don't worry, about, I'm just as guilty as the next guy for assuming the worst motivation behind someones question.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 07:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: paradoxious
So heat from insolence has to hit the ground and be re-radiated before it counts, and heat we generate here doesn't count at all....

... but the CO2 we generate in the process of making that heat is important.


... are you not getting it yet?




I see what your getting at i think how can CO2 be counted but not the heat mankind creates. Well alot of that has to do with physics and statistical analysis. Phage is right the amount of energy the sun is hitting our planet with far outways anything we produce. What that means its like throwing a bucket of water in the ocean.An estimate would be about 12.2 trillion watt-hours per square mile per year, assuming say 1 square foot receives about 100 watts per hour in full sunlight. But Co2 it takes much smaller quantities to affect our atmospheres composition. Though i will say yes Co2 is a greenhouse gas most are actually. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation in three narrow bands of frequencies, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM). This means that most of the heat producing radiation escapes it. With this im wondering if It makes as big a difference as we think it does. Sorry going off on one of my tangents but any way i just realized after about 20 meters of atmosphere the reradiated IR wouldn't exist. Ill get back to you guys but i think i just discovered a problem with global warming.


To continue after an abrupt end I realized that Infrared radiation will only travel a couple of meters from the ground but never make it back the the atmosphere to warm it up again. Between defration and absorbtion. rates say more than 20 meters or so and you hardly have any enervy left in an atmosphere. You Thermal radiation bouncing off the planet would be a ground effect. This heat would rely on convection to get into the upper atmosphere and warm that up. So though the ground is warm doesn't mean the atmosphere above it is. What green house gasses should do is lessen the distance are heat can be radiated into the upper atmosphere not warm it up.

This is why I stopped as I was going through the physics it didn't make sense. When I have the time to look into it more between projects I will.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr




What green house gasses should do is lessen the distance are heat can be radiated into the upper atmosphere not warm it up.

You are not taking re-emission of infrared radiation by CO2 into account. CO2 does not only absorb infrared, it re-emits it. Low level CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses) absorbs infrared from the surface. Some of that energy is retained as heat, some of it is re-emitted as infrared. Some of that infrared (roughly half, by chance) is emitted upward (above the horizon) and some is emitted downward. The process continues. The more CO2 there is, the less infrared will escape into space and the more heat will be retained by the atmosphere.
scied.ucar.edu...

edit on 4/26/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: dragonridr




What green house gasses should do is lessen the distance are heat can be radiated into the upper atmosphere not warm it up.

You are not taking re-emission of infrared radiation by CO2 into account. CO2 does not only absorb infrared, it re-emits it. Low level CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses) absorbs infrared from the surface. Some of that energy is retained as heat, some of it is re-emitted as infrared. Some of that infrared (roughly half, by chance) is emitted upward (above the horizon) and some is emitted downward. The process continues. The more CO2 there is, the less infrared will escape into space and the more heat will be retained by the atmosphere.
scied.ucar.edu...


Maybe going to have to find out the absorbtion rateds for our atmosphere and do some math lol.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: Phage


In the case of our current climate, that mechanism is radiative forcing.

Aren't there other players causing radiative forcing besides co2? I've read that water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas than
co2 and we're adding a fair amount of water by burning fossil fuels. Doesn't that water we 'create' remain in the cycle?


Yes and no. The amount of water liberated from burning of fossil fuels chemically is completely insiginifcant, because of the massive mass of the oceans. The amount of water in the atmosphere depends entirely on weather and the large interaction between oceans and air, and that depends very significantly on climate, in particular, temperature.

This changes in about 2 weeks. If you magically dessicated the atmosphere 100%, it would absorb back its water in a few weeks to its statistical average. If you magically saturated the atmosphere 100% it would precipitate in the same time to its statistical average.

Now, there are indeed OTHER anthropogenic climate forcings other than CO2: some positive (hot) and some negative. The professionals have been looking at these other ones for many years now as well. The IPCC report has a comprehensive chart.



I've wondered if contrails might actually persist and spread more now than before due to increased water vapor in the atmosphere. IIRC, NASA has said that contrails could account for all of the warming since 1980, or something close to that.


I don't believe that the amount is that significant, but the effect of contrails is certainly under investigation.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

The physics and experiments on radiative transfer in atmosphere have been studied for many decades now, starting with investigations by US Air Force & Navy in the 1950's.

Infrared from the ground can in fact go up to the upper atmosphere (most important area of greenhouse effect). As Phage said, the absorbers there interact with upward going infrared, and then re-emit it in all directions.

From the point of view of somebody on the ground, when there's a bigger greenhouse effect, the sky is shining more in infrared so it's warmer on the ground. Why is it cool at night in the desert when it's clear, but warmer when it's humid and cloudy? Same reason. The vapor and clouds are re-emitting infrared which would otherwise be going out to space.

If humans could see infrared, there would be no debate. Old-timers would all say, "sky looks hotter these days than it used to" and old photographs and paintings would look different than today's."



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 09:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: dragonridr

The physics and experiments on radiative transfer in atmosphere have been studied for many decades now, starting with investigations by US Air Force & Navy in the 1950's.

Infrared from the ground can in fact go up to the upper atmosphere (most important area of greenhouse effect). As Phage said, the absorbers there interact with upward going infrared, and then re-emit it in all directions.

From the point of view of somebody on the ground, when there's a bigger greenhouse effect, the sky is shining more in infrared so it's warmer on the ground. Why is it cool at night in the desert when it's clear, but warmer when it's humid and cloudy? Same reason. The vapor and clouds are re-emitting infrared which would otherwise be going out to space.

If humans could see infrared, there would be no debate. Old-timers would all say, "sky looks hotter these days than it used to" and old photographs and paintings would look different than today's."


Not exactly what I was talking about the absorbtion rate of the armosphere in IR would hear up maybe 20 meters from the ground at most higher CO2 would decrease that distance . I suspect im beung way over generos here as well orobably xloser to 10 meters.Meaning say it was 20 meters double CO2 now we would be roughly with an 8 percent absorbtion rate double it do to more co2. And we end up with 10 meters of heat transfer to the upper atmosphere. Do to convection it will all be about area. The more CO2 I could see the less heat produced in the upper atmosphere. The key would be if that is not where the majority of the heat comes from. I'm suspecting there is a diffrent reaction in the upper atmosphere actually

When I can will discuss this further foe now I just have some questions to answer as they say always learning..
edit on 4/26/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
15
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join