Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Lets finish this! Numbers do not lie.

page: 14
279
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal

I have to admit that you do have a point there. Perhaps some consideration should be given before these gases are simply thrown out. You do realize, however, that the likely result will be that the heat increased by carbon dioxide emissions will become even less significant, due to the poor ability of carbon dioxide to absorb infrared radiation compared to these other trace gases. As a matter fact, I perhaps should do a few equations based on present carbon dioxide levels without these other completely man-made gases, just to emphasize that it is not the carbon dioxide that is the true culprit.

This doesn't change the fact that they are not the 'bulk' of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, however.

TheRedneck




posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd

No. They don't cancel each other out and can, in fact, have an additive effect. The climate is a dynamic system, so "tipping points" exist (which is why the Sahara desert is growing) and can have a large impact on other areas... which have an impact on still other areas and so on and so forth.

So what you are saying is that radiative forcing will increase when concentrations increase but will not decrease when concentrations decrease?

I have to be misunderstanding you Byrd. Can you elaborate a bit on this, in a more mathematical manner?


Increasing desertification has affected the entire climate of the world.

That would appear to be self-contradictory to basic science as well. If temperatures increase, the humidity in the air would decrease unless more water vapor is absorbed. More water vapor would mean more water available to fall as rain. And should the severity and frequency of storms increase as well (as has been predicted by many climatologists), that would indicate a wider temperature fluctuation near the earth's surface. More moisture and wider temperature fluctuiations mean more rainfall, not less.

Something here is not adding up.


You won't get an accurate answer with a single variable stable system model (which you used in your initial assessment.) I'm not sure where the raw data is that you would need to crunch, but I know it's out there somewhere and it's very very large.

So far I have been searching diligently for several days with no success. I believe I have found every password log-in box in existence.


If the information is out there, it is well-hidden. Does that not seem strange, considering the fact that it is the basis for major economic and political actions?

As to tipping points, those must be reached before the tipping can happen. Somehow the calculations must show why we are approaching these tipping points before we can assess the cause of them tipping. Consider a tipping point as a bomb. That bomb is harmless as long as a lit fuse doesn't reach it. Perhaps we should make sure we are looking at the right fuse before declaring that the bomb is about to explode? Otherwise, we might light the right one while trying to extinguish the wrong one.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
I have but one question to start with. What do you men by this statement?:



The earth is an average of 6371 km[4],


average of what?



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Bluess

Average radius. Good catch! Got you a star.


TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Byrd

No. They don't cancel each other out and can, in fact, have an additive effect. The climate is a dynamic system, so "tipping points" exist (which is why the Sahara desert is growing) and can have a large impact on other areas... which have an impact on still other areas and so on and so forth.

So what you are saying is that radiative forcing will increase when concentrations increase but will not decrease when concentrations decrease?


It may not. You're not starting from "ground zero." The point you're looking at has been moved and a decrease in something means a decrease at the new level... not dropping back to the old one.


I have to be misunderstanding you Byrd. Can you elaborate a bit on this, in a more mathematical manner?


You have a vector plus an additive vector. If you take away the additive vector, the original vector may remain at its new value but it may not increase or decrease without another change.



Increasing desertification has affected the entire climate of the world.

That would appear to be self-contradictory to basic science as well. If temperatures increase, the humidity in the air would decrease unless more water vapor is absorbed. More water vapor would mean more water available to fall as rain. And should the severity and frequency of storms increase as well (as has been predicted by many climatologists), that would indicate a wider temperature fluctuation near the earth's surface. More moisture and wider temperature fluctuiations mean more rainfall, not less.

Something here is not adding up.


At issue here is WHERE the rains fall (and it's not necessarily available as rain.) See the Wikipedia article (previously linked) on desertification.



You won't get an accurate answer with a single variable stable system model (which you used in your initial assessment.) I'm not sure where the raw data is that you would need to crunch, but I know it's out there somewhere and it's very very large.

So far I have been searching diligently for several days with no success. I believe I have found every password log-in box in existence.


Allow me to help.

In TOPICS IN MATHEMATICAL MODELING by K.K. Tung (which I happen to own because I'm going to have to work through some of these models for a conference paper) there's a whole chapter (7) on "Discrete Time Logistic Map, Periodic and Chaotic Solutions" and one (8) on "Snowball Earth and Global Warming."

From chapter 8, section 7 (p. 150) there's a "simple equation for Climate Perturbation"

(delta)
R ---------- T - Qs (y)(1-(alpha(y))-(A+BT) + (CapitalDelta) * (heatflux)
(delta t)

(copying from book) where Q is 1/4 of the solar constant, s(y) its distribution with respect to latitude globally normalized to unity, y=sin(latitude) and alpha(y) is the albedo. A+BT is the linearlized form of the infared emission of the earth to space fitted from observational data on outgoing longwave radiation (Graves, Lee, & North, 1993 is the citation), R=thermal capacity of the atmosphere-ocean climate system.

Water vapor feedbaci is approximately 0.5 (confirmed by testing on a number of models). Total climate gain from all the feedback is about 0.7.

That's a very rough and badly typed overview, but as you see the equations are out there.

This book was published in 2007 (I got it used) and goes into the individual components of climate analysis. For the simplest analysis modeling look up M.I. Budyko.

It discusses the points at which the stable models (ice free earth and snowball earth) go back into dynamic instability again. Tung discusses the atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature question, climate gains, time-dependent global warming, thermal inertia, stabilizing dynamics, lag time for climate gain factors, and other things.

I hope you can locate a copy of the book. It'll give you a nice starting point. The effects of the 11 year solar cycle are also discussed in there so that although this is a fairly simplistic model it's reasonably thorough.

Oh.... from the chapter head is this note:


Mathematics required: Taylor series expansion or tangent approximation; solution to nonhomogenous ordinary differential equation
Mathematics developed: multiple equibrium branches, linear stability, slope-stability theorem.


Hope that's a bit more enlightening. I realize it's specific to the Snowball Earth theory but gives you a start on the basics.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 





So far I have been searching diligently for several days with no success. I believe I have found every password log-in box in existence.


How much data do you want? I did a random check on a few sources on this listt and didn't find any that were behind passwords. There is a discussion of this list here which includes additional links (which in turn may have been added to the main list already). Go for your life.

And have you checked out this guys model yet like I suggested? Frankly, it is a much better discussion than yours - it is more technical, yet at the same time more understandable. That is not meant as a criticism to you, just a reflection on different writing styles/experience.

You may find his discussion of how important it is to include solar forcings and aerosol forcings as well as GHG forcings in order to match the 20th century temperature curve.

Turns out that Solar Forcing is the dominant cause of warming during the first half of the 20th century, GHG is far and away the most dominate cause of the 2nd half. And CO2 is the major change agent in that 2nd half century.

No informed person is saying that CO2 is the only cause, only that it is the dominate factor in changes during the 2nd half of the 20th century, we put it there, and we can have an effect on how much gets added in the future.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
... and to give you a head start, here's a blast from the past (40 years old) paper of Budyko's from 1969 in which he gives equations ... and shows how he reaches the conclusion that anthropogenic warming is a very real thing: aos.princeton.edu...

He's cited by a whopping lot of people and there are a number of his books available. Original work, alas, is in Russian but the translations are solid enough that his books are also cited.

Others cited in the Tung book that have formulas include Caldeira and Kastings:
www.geosc.psu.edu...

www.geosc.psu.edu...

www.geosc.psu.edu... (interesting one... goes into the longevity of the gases themselves)

North is also cited:
www.atmos.washington.edu...

This is one of his book chapters that discusses (with maths) models:
leonardo.met.tamu.edu...

... and I will leave you to check his references for additional ones. I could spend hours listing the models (and critiques and responses.)

Each of the ones there are cited by hundreds of other people, which means that everyone hopped all over their data and calculations and tested predictions and found them to be reasonably good models.



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   
Ray Pierrehumbert's book on the physics of climate science is freely available online (lots of goodies on the page as well).

geosci.uchicago.edu...

Probably a better insight into the science than armchair redneck 'science'.

Cheers.

@rnaa: hail eris!

[edit on 6-12-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Ray Pierrehumbert's book on the physics of climate science is freely available online (lots of goodies on the page as well).

geosci.uchicago.edu...


I browsed it and found in it many of the formulas in the papers I linked. Well written. I'll second the recommendation (but the computer packages may be beyond most folks.)



posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   
I read through most of the comments, and I have to say...there's a new rule. No more 'but does Climategate mean pollution doesn't matter?' idiot posts. The answer to that is NO. No one is saying that 'oh, global warming is a farce, so let's club a baby seal to death and roast it over a tire fire while pouring nuclear waste into the oceans.' Get over it.

Second, the one thing I found truly faulty about the calculations is that the Sun, in reality, does not strike a circle, it strikes a hemisphere. Different math involving the geometry of a curved, not flat, surface. However, while this is a distortion, I don't know whether it would work to make or break the OP's point. I'm merely pointing this out. BTW, 'peer reviewed', excellent joke...'well, sir, you want to know whether you should hand over your wallet to me, a complete and somewhat shady stranger. Can I direct you to my 'associate' waiting in the alleyway?'

Third, I don't know if anyone bothered to read anything but another person's opinion on Climategate, but one of the most MAJOR accusations is that the science behind the greenhouse effect was FALSIFIED. So if you want to fling poo over something you don't understand, fine, but I really think an open mind would be better than quoting 'constants' you don't know are accurate. Anyone who's taken the most basic of computer programming classes knows GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out. Plug false information into a modeling program and it will produce a false model. Nothing too hard to grasp about that, is there?

Fourth, someone please tell me the effect that human manufacturing, automobiles, and cow farts have on the other 8 (9?
) planets in our solar system separated by millions of miles of vacuum. The sun warms up, so does our planet, and the others, and anything within any kind of reasonable distance. All of our planets have warmed by roughly the same amount (especially when differences in distance from the heat source are taken into account). The sun is 99.99% of the mass in our solar system - it heats up, we do. And it has been heating up.

Folks, I know you were taught that climate change is real in school, but they also said smoking pot is the same thing as smoking crack, and that our country is the land of 'the free' meanwhile it was built upon slaughter and slavery, a tradition that continues to this day, that learning how to diagram a sentence is important in real life, etc. God forbid you take the time to question a long held belief. Or educate yourself about the matter at hand. No, much better to parrot what another parrot said, it's not like there's two poles attracting like minded people in the zeitgeist to squash any real debate, since the silent majority in the middle can't speak over two crowds of idiots screaming into the wind. Half of said idiots are trying to make it so that every single thing that a human uses or does can be taxed because of it's 'carbon footprint'.

If you want the CO2 out of our air, legalize hemp now. If you want Big Oil and Big Pharma off of your back, legalize hemp now. And that's one of a cornucopia of solutions - get acquainted with Bucky Fuller's work, and you'll see that EVEN IF global warming was as bad as 'they' say it is, there's absolutely ZERO reason to put 90% of the planet back in the technological dark ages - we merely need to wise up about how we're conducting ourselves on this planet, and that means in part to stop letting professional liars make your opinions for you.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by vox2442
.............
Now, take the calculations, which you apparently accept as true, and apply them to the CO2 in the OP.

Or, if you prefer, just start ranting about random crap again. Either way.


So now my response has nothing to do with yours?...

From that same link I gave you can find the following..


Source: V. Ramanathan and J.A. Coakley, Jr., “Climate Modeling Through Radiative-Convective Models,” Review of Geophysics & Space Physics 16 (1978):465.


But you can't understand that the AGWists are trying to increase the greenhouse effect of CO2 from 9%- 26%, meanwhile claiming water vapor only accounts for 66% - 80% including clouds, when in fact many other scientists say CO2 only accounts for 2% - 5% ALONGSIDE OTHER GHGS, meanwhile water vapor accounts approximately for 95% - 98% of the greenhouse effect...

There are these differences because these are ONLY educated guesses...except for the AGW guesses which are exagerated...

People like you still can't understand that atmospher CO2 IS GOOD for Earth's flora, fauna and even for mankind...

Since the 1800s the Earth has become GREENER with higher levels of atmospheric CO2.

Yes there is "illegal deforestation", but going after atmospheric CO2 is NOT going to stop illegal deforestation....

These percentages are GUESSES, and looking back at the geological evidence on Earth you can ALWAYS find that atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature increases.

The Earth is DEPRIVED from atmospheric CO2 right now, yet people like you want to sequester more atmospheric CO2?....

BTW, in case you haven't noticed it yet the scammers, Mann, Jones etc CANNOT understand why temperatures haven't increased much because atmospheric CO2 has continued to increase.



[edit on 7-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


So tell us why were the Climategate scammers found to be making statements that they can't understand why temperatures had been increasing?....

Climate models are flawed, and posting same old, same old claims, and same old research about GCMs is not going to stop the fact that we just found the game these scammers have been playing.

Not to mention the hundreds of peer reviewed research that show GCMs are wrong, and AGW is nothing more than a scam.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
................
Turns out that Solar Forcing is the dominant cause of warming during the first half of the 20th century, GHG is far and away the most dominate cause of the 2nd half. And CO2 is the major change agent in that 2nd half century.

No informed person is saying that CO2 is the only cause, only that it is the dominate factor in changes during the 2nd half of the 20th century, we put it there, and we can have an effect on how much gets added in the future.


If it was the "most dominate factor" we wouldn't have seen the cooling trends that have been occurring...

You are just making a claim not based on fact...

"Water vapor" had been increasing naturally during the warming cycle, like it always does, and water vapor is the one gas that accounts for MOST of the ghg effect...not CO2 no matter how many time you try to claim otherwise...

Then there is the fact that research has been found that during the second half of the 20th century the Sun's activity had been continuing to increase which is a fact that AGWers have been trying to hide...


Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits during times of quiet sunspot activity has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to the study. “This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change,” said Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the Earth Institute at Columbia University, and lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.

Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century,” says Willson. “If a trend comparable the one found in this study persisted during the 20th century it would have provided a significant component of the global warming that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report claims to have occurred over the last 100 years.”

Willson found errors in previous satellite data that had obscured the trend. The new analysis, Willson says, should put an end to a debate in the field over whether solar irradiance variability can play a significant role in climate change.

The solar cycle occurs approximately every 11 years when the sun undergoes a period of increased magnetic and sunspot activity called the "solar maximum," followed by a quiet period called the "solar minimum." A trend in the average solar radiation level over many solar magnetic cycles would contribute to climate change in a major way. Satellite observations of total solar irradiance have now obtained a long enough record (over 24 years) to begin looking for this effect.
......................

In order to investigate the possibility of a solar trend, Willson needed to put together a long-term dataset of the Sun’s total output. Six overlapping satellite experiments have monitored TSI since late 1978.The first record came from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Nimbus7 Earth Radiation Budget (ERB) experiment (1978-1993). Other records came from NASA’s Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitors: ACRIM1 on the Solar Maximum Mission (1980-1989), ACRIM2 on the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (1991-2001) and ACRIM3 on the ACRIMSAT satellite (2000 to present). Also, NASA launched its own Earth Radiation Budget Experiment on its Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS) in 1984. And, the European Space Agency’s (ESA) SOHO/VIRGO experiment also provided an independent data set during 1996-1998.

In this study, Willson, who is also Principal Investigator of the ACRIM experiments, compiled a TSI record of over 24 years by carefully piecing together the overlapping records. In order to construct a long-term dataset, Willson needed to bridge a two-year gap (1989-1991) between ACRIM1 and ACRIM2. Both the Nimbus7/ERB and ERBS measurements overlapped the ACRIM ‘gap.’ Using Nimbus7/ERB results produced a 0.05 percent per decade upward trend between solar minima, while ERBS results produced no trend. Until this study, the cause of this difference, and hence the validity of the TSI trend, was uncertain. Now, Willson has identified specific errors in the ERBS data responsible for the difference. The accurate long-term dataset therefore shows a significant positive trend (.05 percent per decade) in TSI between the solar minima of solar cycles 21 to 23 (1978 to present).

www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu...

The study by Wilson was for 24 years only, and it shows that until at least 2002 the Sun's activity had been increasing.

Other previous research has shown that the Sun's activity had been at the highest in at least 1,000 years for about 60-100 years if not more.

[edit on 7-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 



Here is why you are totally wrong - enjoy.

The temperature rise is a gradual process, not isolated points of scale. Hence the calculations do not take into account the accumulative heat process. Which in itself means that the hotter something is - the less energy required to raise it to a higher degree. How this of course drops off at higher degrees - and of course is different for all materials.

You have calculated the increased temperature based on the absorptive capacity of the increased in Co2 - what happened to everything else ? Did it just suddenly stop absorbing ? What happened to the stuff already there ? Is this no longer absorbing either ?!! Fail.

You then subtract the earth from the troposphere - sorry - but all this does is decrease the size of the absorptive area of the earth - which in itself is an inverse exponential deductive equation - EPIC FAIL!! Although you kindly add back in the absorptive impact of the oceans.

You also decided to simply calculate radial calculation as though only a static face of the earth were facing the sun - it rotates and accumulates.

Hence the entire surface area of the extremity of the earth is an absorptive area - So recalculate based on the absorptive impact of the entire cubic circumference of the earth -


If you were to calculate CORRECTLY and without a predetermined bias (thats how i KNOW you have no idea about science) then you would have a very different result - in fact - according to your premise we would have all been boiled alive in about two seconds flat - your desperate attempts to distort the facts have just made a mockery of all science.

The reality is far, far different. Only a TINY fraction of the heat from the sun is absorbed by the earth - there is a REASON why things are COLDER at the POLES and hotter at the EQUATOR - where is this in your calculations - in other words the VAST majority of the heat from the sun is deflected from the earth --

AND A HUGE QUANTITY IS RADIATED BACK INTO SPACE WHICH IS THE POINT ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING AND THE POINT YOU HAVE FAILED TO ADDRESS ENTIRELY --!!!!!


Hence with a relatively steady sun the earth has fluctuated in temperature range fairly predictably over the millennium - so the the thing which you NEED TO CALCULATE is in fact what this standard temperature fluctuation is - what are its trends and what is the trend we are in now - then assess the impact of the .01% increase in fossil fuels on that temperature range because it is NOT the absorptive capacity of the earth from solar radiation which has changed (we can keep on absorbing till we boil) rather it is our capacity to RETAIN HEAT - got that !!!!! How much more heat is being retained in the earth by the increased GREEN HOUSE GASSES (ever worked why they are called green house gases and not solar panel gases ?!!)

In other words what you have calculated is simply the effect on a pot of water by adding a pinch of salt - moronic - what you should be calculating is the rate of temperature rise on the pot of water when you place a LID ON THE POT - as it is an accumulative, retained heat problem we are looking at - not merely the impact of increasing the heat absorbing capacity of the atmosphere -

Hence you need to calculate how much faster will a pot of water (the earth) boil with a lid on it. Hence your calculations need to cover the following -

With a steady pot temperature fluctuating within the realms of ice age - non - ice age- the current temperature fluctation which is outside this normal range is due to the LID or .01% c02 increase.

However this still does not reflect the calculation because the lid (Co2) is accumulative, so we are slowly filling in the lid, and the more we fill it in the faster it raises the temperature NOT a steady curve. (Consider the opposite such as pouring water out of a hole, the larger the hole the faster the rate of loss - pure logic). Hence we need to calculate what the RATIO of Co2 accumulation is on heat trapping - and i think you will find that this has been done AD NAUSEUM by some of the most powerful computers available to humanity - calculations so complex they run in the quadrillions of terraflops per microsecond - CHAMP!

Having now pointed out how far off your thinking is I would also like to point out that you have IN FACT POINTED TO ANOTHER SOURCE OF AGWE - well done - I am not aware that anyone has in fact calculated the increased absorptive impact of a denser atmosphere on AGW - so although you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about - you have bya serendipitous miracle proven exactly the opposite of what you set out to prove and provided a new line of enquiry.

I must say though - I liked your spurious use of numbers - especially the random division of the volume by a factor of 10000 ??!!

Cheers - and keep on punching (even if it is waaaaaaay above your weight).

Here is a little test for you to help you UNDERSTAND - if Venus is 1.4 times closer to the sun, and the majority of the radiation and heat travels via spectrum's which traverse the vacuum of space relatively easily at this short distance (earth included) - hence the inverse square law would imply that it receiving twice the amount of radiation - (not withstanding the fact that it is significantly smaller in volume - your premise not mine -) then it should have an average surface temperature of around 80 degrees but it does not - it is 500 - attributable to its carbon atmosphere - green house effect.

In fact earth without its atmosphere would stabilize out at about 25 degrees below its current average. (Roughly ) the point here is that the atmosphere is our blanket - our lid - it is the ability of the earth to retain heat which is in question - rather its ability to release heat which is of paramount importance - NOT - its ability to absorb heat.




[edit on 7-12-2009 by audas]

[edit on 7-12-2009 by audas]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by die_another_day


0.01%? Why did you multiply that value by 0.0001?




Why did you multiply 1.2144 kJ/m³•°K by 1,000,000? What is this 1,000,000






Your method seems to be faulty.

Truth is, people, look at how the sun can warm the desert by 80C in less than 24 hours. If CO2 is only 0.00001% responsible for that, over 100 years, the temperature rise will still be 0.8k



[edit on 12/1/2009 by die_another_day]

[edit on 12/1/2009 by die_another_day]


And look at how the temperature drops when the sun goes down. If it goes up it needs to go down, otherwise everybody'd burn down there! And this is all related to the 1,3 kW per squaremeter that the OP mentioned first off.

The 10 to the power of n comes from the k suffix. He only transformed to kilometers.

But I don't get why the 55x10 to the power of whatever was multiplied by 0.001. Probably it was about the whole energy that has been available in the past being trapped exclusively by CO2 and thus the increase of CO2 indicates it, assuming it to be solely responsible for heating, to be proportional to the captured energy.

So all in all his argument is supposed to refute at least the assumption that CO2 is the prime cause of heating, which isn't actually taking place, it's just isolating the heat. The sun does all the heating, the CO2 makes sure we ain't freezin at -19 Degrees celsius



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 06:59 AM
link   
Quite frankly, I'm amazed that a site which prides itself on "exposing the hidden hand of the power elite" would publish such blatant statist propaganda!

"'The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

H.L. Mencken


-RTF



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 07:01 AM
link   
Wow, Redneck. Had to borrow your post. It's just too good not to pass around. I give attribution to you here. If you wish otherwise, drop by and let me know.

Some math about CO2

Awesome post, love it!



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Hi Redneck

I haven't had time to read all the posts (or yours properly) at the moment so someone could have already pointed this out.

The warming effect of CO2 and others is caused because CO2 acts as a heat reflector rather than absorbing the incident energy from the Sun directly.

The majority of the suns energy passes through the CO2 which heats the surface of the planet, which re-radiates the energy at longer wavelengths which CO2 and others can absorb.

When the CO2 re-radiates this energy a large proportion is re-radiated back towards the Earth.

If I can ever find the time I will redo your calcs and incorporate the re-radiation to see what happens.






[edit on 7/12/2009 by LightFantastic]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Two things:

1. If the original poster REALLY was onto something corporations would be using the same math to "debunk" GW, but even they aren't that crazy...and they're pretty crazy.

2. Numbers lie ALL THE TIME. That is, people can easily make numbers lie for them, when they have an agenda - - but even if the math is correct (and it's probably not) I'm not trusting my future to the some guy on ATS...sorry.



Finally, now that we know the Russian Mob is behind the leaked emails we should all ask ourselves which side we're gonna choose: Criminal Gangs or Science.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by audas

The reality is far, far different. Only a TINY fraction of the heat from the sun is absorbed by the earth - there is a REASON why things are COLDER at the POLES and hotter at the EQUATOR - where is this in your calculations - in other words the VAST majority of the heat from the sun is deflected from the earth --



How so? From what I could find 16% is absorbed by the atmosphere, 3% by clouds, 51% by the earth, and only 30% is reflected.





new topics

top topics



 
279
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join