It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vector99
That's the jet stream
No. The jet stream does not affect climate (or weather), it is created by weather.
Contrary to popular belief, the jet stream does not "cause" weather conditions of a certain type to occur. Its existence is instead the result of certain weather conditions (a large temperature contrast between two air masses).
So does the direction in which a CO2 molecule re-radiates infrared radiation.
*flipping a coin is a bad analogy because it involves probability
Nor will we. Ever.
*We do not experience 100% radiative force currently
No. It absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation in the same way, no matter what.
*We know that CO2 acts in many ways, depending on the altitude and concentration of the CO2, and mixes of other gases
It's a good example, with the caveat in included.
*Using an overcast night compared to a clear night is another bad example, that isn't CO2 retaining the heat
originally posted by: libertytoall
originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: libertytoall
That's the jet stream
Exactly so not all rules are absolute when it comes to the environment. If there was no jetstream in the pacific northwest, it would not experience the same rainfall and warm temps. But as for the general way the environment works it does not support the doom and gloom of the runaway warming nor the blame on humans for ruining the environment.
Jesus phage.. en.wikipedia.org...
As the earth warms, the rain belt is projected to move north of the current position.
Yes it is. The Caribbean owes its rainfall patterns to its climate regime, just as the Pacific Northwest does. Just as the Sahara does.
Global warming will alter those regimes.
originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: Phage
Surely the velocity of spin and height combined would factor in. If the height remained constant, but rate of spin could be controlled, one could differ the odds from pure chance (50/50).
This reminds me of a conversation a decade ago between two friends, one arguing that if a coin flip had landed tails 10 times in a row, it was more likely to hit heads the next spin. The other said each flip was 50/50. I see both points. They are both true, but for different reasons. A coin flipped 11 times will improbably reach tails 11 times in a row, but it will also (all things remaining equal) always have a 50/50 chance. Each roll being unaffected by the prior results.
This doesn't apply when one takes other factors into consideration. You seem to want to dismiss these other factors to keep to some other point.
Reflection is not the same thing as re-emission but I guess you didn't read this post:
The co2 may absorb and reflect in the same way always, that is just simple physics, but you are basing your hypothesis on co2 being the only factor.
Which covers more area?
A cirrus cloud may reflect a lot down to us, while a cumulous cloud will absorb most.
Yes. If a warm CO2 molecule bumps into an O2 molecule it transfers energy to it and warms it up. But the way that CO2 absorbs infrared and re-emits it doesn't change. If it doesn't bump into that O2 molecule, it re-emits the infrared in a random direction.
Re-emission according to you is based on no considering factors, like the other gases in the atmosphere. They do all work together
The only real difference is due to optical density. The cirrus allows sunlight to reach the surface. Cumulus, not so much. At night, when there is no sunlight, it doesn't really matter. Both prevent heat from being radiated into space.
That depends, several cirrus clouds can collectively "cover" the same area as a cumulous, with vastly different effects.
No, I said it depends on all of the variables involved.