Global warming milestone about to be passed and there's no going back.

a reply to: Phage

Sry phage why should i answer your question if you denied dozens of my previous questions to you?
In the case of Neptune it is impossible that the warming of it's thermosphere is caused by radiative forcing.

a reply to: intergalactic fire
As far as I can see you asked me three questions (dozens?) in one post about sea levels, three days ago. In the meanwhile, those questions seem to have been answered.

In the case of Neptune it is impossible that the warming of it's thermosphere is caused by radiative forcing.

Then what was the point of bringing it up?

Do you think the Earth's thermosphere is hot because of radiative forcing? Or do you think that, as with the upper reaches of any atmosphere, the heating is caused by direct solar radiation rather than infrared from the surface? The sort of heating which is caused by radiative forcing.

Do you think that the high temperature of the thermosphere represents a high level of heat content?

a reply to: Phage

I could give you my own opinion or the scientific version?
If you already know the answer why would you ask?

a reply to: intergalactic fire

I could give you my own opinion or the scientific version?

I would be interested in hearing yours if it differs from the scientific "version."

I asked because I wondered what you think thermospheric heating has to do with radiative forcing.

originally posted by: intergalactic fire

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: WeAre0ne

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
So what's the deal with Neptune, only have trace amounts of GHG yet temperatures are reaching +400ºC?

I'm sorry, did you just say Neptune is +400ºC ?

He doesn't know what the hell he is talking about, as is well demonstrated in this thread.
Typical of those who deny climate change.

He probably read it on the internet somewhere.

Please quote myself where i ones said i deny climate change.

Your attitude is far away from respectful but I hope you get a kick out of it somehow.

The only thing you are talking about is co2/warming/Stefan-Boltzmann and how the skeptics are funded by right wing corporations so their opinion and observations are useless unscientific claims.
Denying the skeptics isn't how science works but you seems to do nothing more than that. If you deny the works of Roy Spencer is just disrespectful against science itself, Spencer is a very intelligent and respected man within the science community even among the believers and there are many others. As I said in my comment to "elysiumfire" .
But believe what you want and I'll do that to, but if within a decade or so it turns out the models and predictions were wrong, would you reconsider your believes? I know will.

Oh no, did I offend your sensibilities?

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
This paper won't change a thing nor does any other that disproves man made global warming.

It's become that far that it starts to smell like a religion,
and we know what they want right. There is a good reason they want people to believe the scam

The further you look into it the nastier it becomes.

The war started a looong time ago.

btw. link doesn't work

link

Scam my ass.

a reply to: Greven

What do personal feelings or your derriere has to do with any of this? I'm not offended by anyone or anything, I just think your attitude is inappropriate.
But i believe you don't care what i think, right. So why the discussion?

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: Greven

What do personal feelings or your derriere has to do with any of this? I'm not offended by anyone or anything, I just think your attitude is inappropriate.
But i believe you don't care what i think, right. So why the discussion?

What a weak reply.

You challenged me to quote you denying climate change:

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
Please quote myself where i ones said i deny climate change.

Oh, look, there it is above:

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
This paper won't change a thing nor does any other that disproves man made global warming.

It's become that far that it starts to smell like a religion,
and we know what they want right. There is a good reason they want people to believe the scam

Before you try to wriggle out of that, you well know that we mean anthropogenic climate change. Otherwise you wouldn't be here complaining, so don't bother with that, please. Nobody rational is going to buy that.

Again, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. You coach it as a 'lukewarmer' here and elsewhere you call it a scam. You're misleading others. Maybe it's you who get a kick out of such things?

I'm left with the impression that you do have some inkling of reality, yet are willfully misrepresenting things. I wonder why?

a reply to: Greven

I always said I don't believe (anymore) in anthropogenic climate change, but that may change in the future who knows.
What I wont stop believing for sure is natural climate change, otherwise we simply would not be alive.

Sry I am not familiar with the term "lukewarmer" . Basic english is already far to complicated for me with outside the other 4 languages i speak. So certain phrases or terms or dialects I have no understanding off.

I'm left with the impression that you do have some inkling of reality, yet are willfully misrepresenting things. I wonder why?

You tell me, maybe you can bring me onto a path of understand myself better?
Or It's possible I'm just stupid and lost to many braincells during the flower power which lead to a misinterpretation of certain aspects and i'm unaware of that so maybe should visit a psychiatrist? That's a very high probability but nonetheless thanks for the concern.

Both, by solar radiation effects on the ionosphere but also by radiative forcing. I believe those both parts of the atmosphere are connected in a way it acts as some sort of exchange layer rather than just an insulation layer. It works in both ways but at different ratios.
The amount of heat being created by the greenhouse effect is in correlation with the heat being captured in the ionosphere, which is associated with a certain lag.

The ratio depends on the amount of GHG present in the lower atmosphere, which regulates the upper to lower exchange. And the ratio between the activity inside the ionosphere/magnetosphere regulates the lower to upper exchange.
So for example if the strength of the magnetosphere or the concentration of solar radiation(pressure, velocity, temperature) is low it will trap more GHG because there is less exchange and less particles to act upon. This will cause a warming of the lower atmosphere for a certain period but will eventually lead to a cooling of the lower atmosphere.

So in short I believe the geomagnetic field and the sun are a major driver of climate change.
I don't know if my simplex opinion makes any sense to you. Do I have proof of that? No, but I can have an opinion.


Heat content? As in solar output? The higher the output or input ,depends on which way you look at it, will cause a higher temperature.

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
So you are probably looking for the answer 'greenhouse effect' but that is the easy-way-out-answer.

So lets get back on track again...

Yes I was looking for the answer "greenhouse effect", because that is what is happening, it is proven science. Do you understand the greenhouse effect, and how it works?

Do you understand how it keeps the Earth warm at night? If so, please do explain why. Show us your knowledge of this basic scientific fact.

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
Yes every planet experience to some extend a greenhouse effect but wasn't there news some years ago that every planet in the solar system is experiencing a rise in greenhouse effect?

I don't think so. Please show your source.

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
So why is there a major difference in temperature on Venus and Mars but both have almost same levels of co2 and nitrogen in their atmosphere? It must be because of the distance to the sun right?

No, its because Mars has a really thin atmosphere. Mars' atmosphere is less than 1% of Earth's atmosphere. There is not enough atmosphere to block radiation, nor retain heat at the surface. Basically, not enough atmosphere to have a significant greenhouse effect.

Venus is the exact opposite. Venus' atmosphere is 90 times thicker than Earth's atmosphere. Although both Mars and Venus have around 95% to 96% CO2, the volume of CO2 is different, you do the math. Basically, Venus' atmosphere is so thick that the greenhouse effect keeps it warmer than planet Mercury which is closer to the Sun.

So here you have it, proof that planets with thicker atmospheres that contain more greenhouse gases by volume are hotter. So what do you think will happen to Earth as we pump more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and make it thicker?

Please do answer.

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
So what's the deal with Neptune, only have trace amounts of GHG yet temperatures are reaching +400ºC?

You are talking about the thermosphere... Why?

a reply to: intergalactic fire

So for example if the strength of the magnetosphere or the concentration of solar radiation(pressure, velocity, temperature) is low it will trap more GHG because there is less exchange and less particles to act upon.

I don't really understand how low solar radiation would cause more gasses to be trapped (where do they go when solar radiation is high?), but thanks for your version.

Heat content? As in solar output? The higher the output or input ,depends on which way you look at it, will cause a higher temperature.

No. Heat content doesn't have much to do with solar output or temperature. It is a measure of how much thermal energy is contained in a given volume at a given density. For example; if you have a 10 gallon bucket of water and a 20 gallon bucket of water both at 30º, the 20 gallon bucket has twice as much heat. The same principle applies to equal volumes of different densities. In this case, since the thermosphere is so diffuse, even though it has high temperatures it does not have much heat. This is an important concept.

a reply to: Phage

because of the lower interaction between particles in the upper and lower atmosphere what causes the insulation layer to widen, so less gasses can 'escape'. Does that make any sense?

a reply to: intergalactic fire
Not to me.
There isn't much interaction between the upper atmosphere and the lower atmosphere. The stratosphere is a very strong and deep thermal inversion. You know how a thermal inversion traps smog beneath it? The stratosphere makes that kind of inversion look like nothing.
www.windows2universe.org...

Past the point of no return?

Awesome! Maybe the global zealots will stop whining now.

a reply to: Phage

I see this phenomena often here in the mountains, yes. So for the fog to clear you sometimes need a strong current to wipe away the inversion. Isn't that possible in the high atmosphere, like a strong solar wind? What makes it more vulnerable and a less efficient barrier?

Would you have an opinion on the possibility temperature and co2 rise are caused by external factors?

a reply to: intergalactic fire
I am quite convinced, from very strong evidence, that the rise in CO2 levels is caused almost entirely by the burning of fossil fuels. www.abovetopsecret.com...

I have not seen convincing evidence of any external factors sufficient to account for the rise in global temperature.

a reply to: Phage

a reply to: Phage I see this phenomena often here in the mountains, yes. So for the fog to clear you sometimes need a strong current to wipe away the inversion. Isn't that possible in the high atmosphere, like a strong solar wind? What makes it more vulnerable and a less efficient barrier? Would you have an opinion on the possibility temperature and co2 rise are caused by external factors?

did you happen to read the article i posted in the other thread?
file.scirp.org...

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: Phage

a reply to: Phage I see this phenomena often here in the mountains, yes. So for the fog to clear you sometimes need a strong current to wipe away the inversion. Isn't that possible in the high atmosphere, like a strong solar wind? What makes it more vulnerable and a less efficient barrier? Would you have an opinion on the possibility temperature and co2 rise are caused by external factors?

did you happen to read the article i posted in the other thread?
file.scirp.org...

I skimmed it just now (I'm about done for the night). A couple of criticisms:
1) The idea that geomagnetic activity affects climate does not seem to be supported by the data. Solar activity has been on the decline, temperatures have not been.
2) The changes in the isotopic signature of atmospheric CO2 indicate that; a) it's origin is plant material b) it's origin is very, very old plant material. Not the ocean.
3) Oceanic pH levels are decreasing. This indicates that the ocean is absorbing CO2, not releasing it.

originally posted by: WeAre0ne

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
So you are probably looking for the answer 'greenhouse effect' but that is the easy-way-out-answer.

So lets get back on track again...

Yes I was looking for the answer "greenhouse effect", because that is what is happening, it is proven science. Do you understand the greenhouse effect, and how it works?

Do you understand how it keeps the Earth warm at night? If so, please do explain why. Show us your knowledge of this basic scientific fact.

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
Yes every planet experience to some extend a greenhouse effect but wasn't there news some years ago that every planet in the solar system is experiencing a rise in greenhouse effect?

I don't think so. Please show your source.

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
So why is there a major difference in temperature on Venus and Mars but both have almost same levels of co2 and nitrogen in their atmosphere? It must be because of the distance to the sun right?

No, its because Mars has a really thin atmosphere. Mars' atmosphere is less than 1% of Earth's atmosphere. There is not enough atmosphere to block radiation, nor retain heat at the surface. Basically, not enough atmosphere to have a significant greenhouse effect.

Venus is the exact opposite. Venus' atmosphere is 90 times thicker than Earth's atmosphere. Although both Mars and Venus have around 95% to 96% CO2, the volume of CO2 is different, you do the math. Basically, Venus' atmosphere is so thick that the greenhouse effect keeps it warmer than planet Mercury which is closer to the Sun.

So here you have it, proof that planets with thicker atmospheres that contain more greenhouse gases by volume are hotter. So what do you think will happen to Earth as we pump more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and make it thicker?

I don't think this is proof of a greenhouse warming, because there are planets without any greenhouse gases that can reach higher temperatures than solar solar insolation such as Jupiter and Uranus. Jupiter gets hotter as you descend deeper into its atmosphere and this most likely because of pressure. Jupiter is considered a failed star. If the planet had more mass, it would be able to generate enough gravitational compression for nuclear fusion.

As someone mentioned in this thread, pressure is proportional to temperature. If you increase pressure, temperature increases. I think this would only apply permanently to a thermodynamically-closed system though because the heat from the increased pressure would escape into the surroundings. I mean, there are pressurised gas canisters that are very cold. So a constant cycle of continuous compression and decompression would be needed. This constant cycle I imagine would be possible on a planet because of convective overturning.

So just because Venus has a thick atmosphere, I don't think it is proof that it is a result of greenhouse warming. Pressure could be responsible. The idea Venus is hot as a result of greenhouse warming seems unlikely to me. For starters Venus makes a full rotation once every 240 days and so the night-side of the planet does not get any solar radiation for about 120 days. Yet despite this there is almost no difference in temperature between the two sides. How can the greenhouse effect be maintaining such high temperatures at night when it is dependent on solar radiation to operate and when the night-side is not seeing any solar radiation for such prolonged periods? The wind at the surface on Venus is also very weak at only 0.3 to 1.0 metre/second and so any convective heat-transfer from day to the night would seem unlikely. Furthermore Venus gets a maximum of 2601 W/m2 of solar radiation (65 W/m2 averaged out of the whole planet) and its surface is radiating at about 16,700 W/m2. CO2 is an inert body and cannot create additional energy from nowhere. That extra energy has to be coming from somewhere, and I would guess that it's probably pressure from gravitational compression. The same gravitational compression that allows stars to go from near zero to 6000K.

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: Phage

Sry phage why should i answer your question if you denied dozens of my previous questions to you?
In the case of Neptune it is impossible that the warming of it's thermosphere is caused by radiative forcing.

One explanation for the very high temperatures of the molecules in the thermosphere is that it is a result of a photo-chemical or exothermic reaction whereby diotomic oxygen molecules (O2) dissociate under UV-radiation and are rapidly converted into ozone (O3) and this chemical conversion is apparently what produces the extraordinary heat of the very few molecules that exist up there. The stratosphere below receives the same amount of solar radiation and is very cold, so something else is going on.