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.
But, I see that there are still those who deny that the planet is warming. Human caused, or otherwise.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven
1) The Earth should be about 255K based on the Stefan-Boltzmann law; at the surface, it is considerably warmer, but the whole of the atmosphere averages to about 255K.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law applies to a perfect black body. We know of no such object that actually exists; instead we use Stefan-Boltzmann as a close approximation to most objects which do act close to a perfect black body.
2) This variation in temperature is due to the greenhouse effect, which redistributes energy within the atmosphere by gases intercepting radiation leaving the surface and redirecting some of it back to the surface - cooling higher parts of the atmosphere.
That is the prevailing theory, although the term "greenhouse effect" is a loose term scientifically speaking. The actual effect is the absorption and re-radiation in a random direction of photons with energy matching the spectroscopic absorption bands of the molecules in the atmosphere.
3) CO2, second only to water vapor in overall effect, is a gas that intercepts and re-emits infrared radiation at certain wavelengths - long proven by spectroscopy.
As is every other gas known to mankind. Liquids and solids, too. Spectroscopy is the study of inherent bands of absorption and re-emission of materials, which exist due to possible quantum state variations in the atomic structure of the materials studied. ALL materials, not just those we decide to study, have spectroscopic absorption bands.
As to the extent of those bands between water vapor and carbon dioxide... you are attempting to consolidate atmospheric density and spectral bandwidth. Fine, in that case, carbon dioxide is second to water vapor. But it is a far distant second place; the spectroscopic bandwidth of carbon dioxide is a tiny, minute fraction of the spectral bandwidth of water vapor, and carbon dioxide also exists in minute quantities compared to water vapor.
4) CO2 levels are going up because we are burning fossil fuels, which combines atmospheric O2 with C; consequently, O2 levels are decreasing and CO2 levels are rising somewhat less than what humans are emitting to the atmosphere.
True enough, however it is also apparent from the data we have that the planet can reabsorb carbon dioxide through natural processes. The extent of those processes is as of yet unknown, as we do not know how long the systems will take to stabilize.
The amount of oxygen removed is so tiny compared to the amount that is there, mentioning it in a non-academic setting is flirting with abuse of connotation.
That's all the steps it takes to say that humans are causing warming.
That is not a leap of logic I am willing to make on the evidence thus far.
The idea that the Sun is cooling considerably is nonsense.
I must agree, although I use the term "unproven" rather than "nonsense." We have no evidence to indicate a substantial differential in the solar output during the time spans under consideration.
Again, I repeat, Stefan-Boltzmann will provide a close approximation of the black body radiation of the planet, not a precise amount. All materials have specific quantum states they can exist in, as mentioned above, and they can only absorb energy equal to the difference between these states. This quantization throws off the exactness of the Stefan-Boltzmann law and causes it to be an approximation. What we see as temperature of a material is actually a combination of various molecules at various temperatures, averaged together to give what appears to be a purely analog temperature. A single molecule, however, will likely not be at that average temperature and indeed, could be extremely higher or lower than the average temperature. It is these particles that actually emit the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation, not the planet as a whole.
With that in mind, I do question if the relative spectral output of the sun has altered, since this could make a slight difference in the absorption/radiation of the various materials of the planet. I have not yet seen any data on that, so I cannot say one way or another if it is feasible.
TheRedneck
Now, if you're attempting to prove (as I think you are) that the 400 ppmv of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has some effect on temperature, you can rest now. I already know that. However, the amount of carbon dioxide compared to the amount of other gases (water vapor, for instance) means the contribution to outgoing absorption is quite small overall... certainly not enough for even a doubling of present carbon dioxide levels to be catastrophic. My argument is quantitative, not qualitative.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
Now, if you're attempting to prove (as I think you are) that the 400 ppmv of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has some effect on temperature, you can rest now. I already know that. However, the amount of carbon dioxide compared to the amount of other gases (water vapor, for instance) means the contribution to outgoing absorption is quite small overall... certainly not enough for even a doubling of present carbon dioxide levels to be catastrophic. My argument is quantitative, not qualitative.
If an estimate of 4,000 volcanoes per million square kilometers on the floor of the Pacific Ocean is extrapolated for all the oceans than there are more than a million submarine (underwater) volcanoes. Perhaps as many as 75,000 of these volcanoes rise over half a mile (1 kilometer) above the ocean floor. Technology and hard work by a group of tenacious explorers/geologists have allowed us our first detailed glimpses of submarine volcanoes. The following pages outline some of the basic characteristics and features of submarine volcanoes.
Big enough to have major effects on agriculture, human health, national security, agriculture, and comfort? Yes.
originally posted by: 727Sky
a reply to: mbkennel
Something to consider about CO2: The Ocean is the repository of most of Earth's CO2. In 1992 there was an estimation that there were 10,000 under sea volcanoes. Then in 1993 another 1100 volcanoes were mapped.. Sometime later it is now believed the are between one and three million under sea volcanoes.. When you heat the water CO2 is released and there is not a darn thing humankind can do about it..
If an estimate of 4,000 volcanoes per million square kilometers on the floor of the Pacific Ocean is extrapolated for all the oceans than there are more than a million submarine (underwater) volcanoes. Perhaps as many as 75,000 of these volcanoes rise over half a mile (1 kilometer) above the ocean floor. Technology and hard work by a group of tenacious explorers/geologists have allowed us our first detailed glimpses of submarine volcanoes. The following pages outline some of the basic characteristics and features of submarine volcanoes.
originally posted by: 727Sky
a reply to: mbkennel
Something to consider about CO2: The Ocean is the repository of most of Earth's CO2. In 1992 there was an estimation that there were 10,000 under sea volcanoes. Then in 1993 another 1100 volcanoes were mapped.. Sometime later it is now believed the are between one and three million under sea volcanoes.. When you heat the water CO2 is released and there is not a darn thing humankind can do about it..
If an estimate of 4,000 volcanoes per million square kilometers on the floor of the Pacific Ocean is extrapolated for all the oceans than there are more than a million submarine (underwater) volcanoes. Perhaps as many as 75,000 of these volcanoes rise over half a mile (1 kilometer) above the ocean floor. Technology and hard work by a group of tenacious explorers/geologists have allowed us our first detailed glimpses of submarine volcanoes. The following pages outline some of the basic characteristics and features of submarine volcanoes.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven
I can tell you have spent the last few days reading. Kudos.
Your observations on the anomalous temperature differentials in the atmosphere fail to include half of the equation. The warming of the planet is exclusively solar radiation, which arrives primarily as visible/UV radiation, is partially reflected depending on albedo, and is partially absorbed by the planet and re-emitted according to Stefan-Boltzmann, adjusted for quantum effects as I explained earlier.
Initial warming is caused by two things primarily: oxygen (~200,000 ppmv) spectral absorption, which covers most of the UV spectrum, including conversion to and absorption by ozone, and absorption/re-emission of water/water vapor which can cover some of the visible spectrum as well as the UV. That is the area you are missing.
The increasing temperature with altitude in the upper stratosphere/lower mesosphere is a result of incoming solar radiation being blocked by both ozone and oxygen... and thank God it is! Otherwise, we'd all die fairly rapidly due to radiation. So we're not talking about 15 ppmv being solely responsible for incoming absorption... we're talking about ~200,000 ppmv (20%).
Now, if you're attempting to prove (as I think you are) that the 400 ppmv of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has some effect on temperature, you can rest now. I already know that. However, the amount of carbon dioxide compared to the amount of other gases (water vapor, for instance) means the contribution to outgoing absorption is quite small overall... certainly not enough for even a doubling of present carbon dioxide levels to be catastrophic. My argument is quantitative, not qualitative.
The time a molecule spends in the atmosphere is a somewhat irrelevant bit of trivia. We can measure the (approximate) concentrations, and the changes have been pretty slow overall. We do know that carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere through photosynthesis and the resulting carbon integrated into plant cells, and it should be self evident that the faster a plant grows, the faster this removal would become. Plant growth rates generally increase with increasing carbon dioxide levels and temperature (and before anyone goes off on a tangent into irrelevance again, that growth is reliant on water and nutrient availability). And finally, should we need to remove carbon dioxide (an unlikely scenario in my educated opinion), there are plenty of methods already available to do so.
TheRedneck
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: 727Sky
We get it. You don't think the earth is getting warmer.
I disagree.