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.

 

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

page: 9
63
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Nathan-D
 


I haven't said anything about AGW. I'm just talking about some of the physics involved with climate.

Yes, the oceans can hold more heat than the atmosphere. But the oceans redistribute heat, they do not make it go away. When the air temperature is higher than the sea surface temperature (the situation in a large area of the Earth), the sea warms up. Sometimes currents take that warmed up water to someplace that "needs" it, sometimes not.

If the global heat budget changes, be it because of increased solar irradiance or increased atmospheric infrared absorption due to increased ghg's, or because of some other reason entirely, that heat has to go somewhere. That somewhere is the ocean, our great big wonderful heat sink.

Unless you're saying that the world's temperature has always been the same as it is now.

[edit on 8/11/2010 by Phage]




posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nathan-D
True, but CO2 only makes up 0.038% of the atmosphere. Are you seriously proposing that a gas which constitutes 0.038% of the atmosphere is currently driving planetary temperatures and heating the oceans? I mean... realistically?

AGW is nothing more than a scam - with one goal in mind: to set-up a quasi-socialistic system where bureaucracies determine what we can and can't do.

[edit on 11-8-2010 by Nathan-D]


Your logic is completely false on this. I don't know why I keep having to explain this to people...

While 0.038% is not a large number as a PERCENTAGE of the atmosphere, that has NOTHING to do with its contribution to global warming. Greenhouse gases like CO2 are composed of molecules of 3 or more atoms which act as mini-"catchers mitts" for certain spectrums of incoming radiation. When radiation reaches the Earth's atmosphere, it does NOT pause for a moment, calculate greenhouse gases as a percentage of the atmosphere and then warm the atmosphere accordingly, instead it reacts to the TOTAL amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In the case of CO2 we're talking GIGA/TERRA-TONNES, which can absolutely account for the amount of warming we've seen over the past century. Also, the hard science is that if all the CO2 were removed from our atmosphere, we'd see a global decrease of 60 degrees Fahrenheit. So... CO2 plays a HUGE role in global temperature, climate, and warming. We've increased atmospheric concentrations from 280ppm to 390ppm in barely a century, the planet's natural carbon sinks are unable to catch up to the rate of emissions, therefore we see a concordant rise in CO2 AND temps.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Star and Flag

I have NEVER bought into the theory that humans (pollution) causes global warming..That has ALWAYS sounded ridiculous to me.

I think that they say that to keep us from panicking

If they say that its our cars and hair spray, then we feelin control of it. No fear.

But if they were to tell us the truth that our star is active because its in it beginning stages of its death (thus its swelling and all this extra heat), then we no longer feel in control and get scared.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ButterCookie
Star and Flag

I have NEVER bought into the theory that humans (pollution) causes global warming..That has ALWAYS sounded ridiculous to me.

I think that they say that to keep us from panicking

If they say that its our cars and hair spray, then we feelin control of it. No fear.

But if they were to tell us the truth that our star is active because its in it beginning stages of its death (thus its swelling and all this extra heat), then we no longer feel in control and get scared.



So... you're saying there is never anything in the world to actually fear and every bad thing is manufactured to control us?

If you have ANY solid evidence that global warming is a hoax to cover up our sun going VERY PREMATURELY supernova then please present it. I've seen absolutely NO evidence of this, nor does it make any scientific sense.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 05:47 AM
link   

While 0.038% is not a large number as a PERCENTAGE of the atmosphere, that has NOTHING to do with its contribution to global warming.

It isn't false, at all. Physics would prohibit a gas as scarce as CO2 from significantly heating the atmosphere. When CO2 absorbs IR energy and heats that heat is then distributed over all the molecules in the atmosphere which includes 78% of nitrogen and 21% oxygen. Given that CO2 only accounts for 0.038% of the atmosphere (or one particle in three thousand) there's no physical way it could significantly heat the atmosphere, unless each particle were heated to thousands of degrees and kept hot allowing it to distribute enough heat to the remaining 3,000 particles in the atmosphere. A simple analogy would be like heating one grain of rice and trying to heat up three thousand other grains of rice with that single grain.

Also, keep in mind that even the IPCC don't think that CO2 by itself can cause much warming if it is doubled. Most of the projected warming comes from feedback factors. These feedbacks create the vast bulk of 3-6 degrees of warming in the climate models. The problem is, we're struggling to detect these positive feedbacks and there's substantial evidence to suggest that the feedbacks are in fact negative, which is hardly surprising, since pretty much everything in nature has a negative feedback.


which can absolutely account for the amount of warming we've seen over the past century.

Not sure you'd get everyone agreeing with that.


Also, the hard science is that if all the CO2 were removed from our atmosphere, we'd see a global decrease of 60 degrees Fahrenheit.

I'd be enormously surprised if that were the case for CO2. Probably H20, but not CO2. Any sources?


We've increased atmospheric concentrations from 280ppm to 390ppm in barely a century, the planet's natural carbon sinks are unable to catch up to the rate of emissions.

See Beck 2007. There's good evidence suggesting that CO2 varied quite a bit during the 20th century.

[edit on 12-8-2010 by Nathan-D]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Not sure if anyone has posted this chart yet. Puts it into perspective !


www.iceagenow.com...

And a good slide show with info on sun/temps and CO2 lagging

www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com...



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Nathan-D
 


I'm not going to get into this too deep with you - because I grew quite bored with your inability to grasp basic science in our last discussion. But I'm getting kind of annoyed watching you try to talk down to other members about physics when you once again have no idea what you're going on about.

CO2 does not contribute to global warming by heating itself up, and then conducting that heat somehow to other parts of the atmosphere. It simply acts as a tennis racket, bouncing outgoing radiation around, some of which makes it's way right back to the surface. And yes it does play a significant role even at 0.038%, because all that radiation is so scattered in the first place - it's bound to hit a GHG somewhere on the way up, no matter how "scarce" it might seem from below. More GHG's simply mean the more likely that radiation is to bounce back - and what this all amounts to isn't so much "heating" the planet as it is merely slowing down it's rate of cooling.

This is why statements like this are so completely absurd:


It's not that greenhouse gases may not help, they can't help drive up the planetary temperature. The greenhouse effect promulgated by the AGW fraternity violates the second law of thermodynamics; a cold atmosphere cannot heat up a warmer planet.


Do you have any idea how much you've jumped off the rails of common sense trying to trumpet this absolutely re-donk-ulous denier myth?

First of all, if this were true it would mean that there's no such thing as a greenhouse effect. Like as in - at all - i.e. not even the undisputed natural greenhouse effect that makes our planet 33C warmer than what it's supposed to be, that can be PROVEN simply by doing some math, and that NO ONE, other than the most looney toon crackpot scientologist would dare to dispute?

So if you're going to seriously play this card now then it also makes you a total hypocrite, since the last time I tried to explain all this in another thread you responded with this:


I don't think anyone seriously contests that CO2 is a GHG and absorbs infrared radiation and has a warming effect

Remember?


So yeah, I'm sorry - I don't mean to pick on you but you leave me no choice - because when you foolishly call out other members like so:


It's obvious schools nowadays don't teach children the critical life skills of logic and deduction. Just take a look at the people on this forum. The media just repeatedly beats into their patsy heads that every scientist agrees with AGW and the ones that are left are on the fringes and paid by oil companies and they lap it up like spittle-flecked idiots.

...you are completely asking for it.

You're accusing everyone else of lacking logic and deduction in the very same paragraph where you just made a complete mockery of it.

And you seriously still think we're the brainwashed ones right? I mean - I can't wait to see you try to backpedal out of this because, as if your junkscience.com links weren't proof enough before, you've really just screwed the pooch when it comes to lying to yourself about how much all of your global warming "knowledge" is coming from nothing but fake/fringe/oil company funded/denier propaganda. Go ahead and try to play this off as some baseless accusation or whatever - the proof is right there in your own pudding.


You wanna know just how bad this piece of crap "science" is you're parroting from whatever blog you picked it up on?

Even denier scientists like Spencer won't touch it with a 50 foot pole. They won't touch it because they know anyone who's ever taken an undergrad course in thermodynamics could debunk it in 12 seconds:


A second objection has to do with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is claimed that since the greenhouse effect depends partly upon cooler upper layers of the atmosphere emitting infrared radiation toward the warmer, lower layers of the atmosphere, that this violates the 2nd Law, which (roughly speaking) says that energy must flow from warmer objects to cooler objects, not the other way around.

There are different ways to illustrate why this is not a valid objection. First of all, the 2nd Law applies to the behavior of whole systems, not to every part within a system, and to all forms of energy involved in the system…not just its temperature. And in the atmosphere, temperature is only one component to the energy content of an air parcel.

Secondly, the idea that a cooler atmospheric layer can emit infrared energy toward a warmer atmospheric layer below it seems unphysical to many people. I suppose this is because we would not expect a cold piece of metal to transfer heat into a warm piece of metal. But the processes involved in conductive heat transfer are not the same as in radiative heat transfer. A hot star out in space will still receive, and absorb, radiant energy from a cooler nearby star…even though the NET flow of energy will be in the opposite direction.

Debunking courtesy of Roy Spencer himself.

But that doesn't stop other denialists from propagating this nonsense around the internet, because they know all they need to do is throw enough sciencey sounding bull**** at the wall and wait for some wannabe expert to come along and make it stick.

So yeah, nice work - keep pointing fingers at all the other "spittle-flecked idiots" on this forum. And keep sticking your foot directly in your mouth every time you do.

First you were posting links from junk science and now you are literally posting actual junk science.

But nooooooo, your information can't possibly be coming from lying oil company shills...that's just a convenient excuse all of us warming patsies made up because we're so brainwashed...*yawn*



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
You wanna talk about profit and fear-mongering?

MOST environmentalists are AGAINST cap-and-trade. It's just an insider cop-out that gives lax standards on emissions to industry. We all know that our government is bought and paid for by banking/corporate/wealthy special interests. There is AMPLE evidence that these special interests have PURPOSELY tried to create doubt about global warming, creating a false public/political debate when the SCIENTIFIC debate ended years and years ago (and there definitely WAS a scientific debate).


I just wanna quote this for truth and second the motion.

It's amazing how so much of all the polemic denier vs. warmist debate around here is based on this completely wrong assumption that anyone who believes in global warming automatically supports all the wishy washy political posturing trying to exploit it.

A real problem can still be exploited by TPTB, but that doesn't change the fact that it's real.

So if we're going to actually stop TPTB from corrupting the crap out of such an important issue, we need to all stop regurgitating the propaganda, stop trying to distort the FACTS simply because it boosts our own ego, and get back to mutually trying to deny ignorance rather than just win the fake debate.

If some of the denier bunch would just get off their own high horses, give up the pointless ManBearPig jokes, and have the cajones to acknowledge how much crap is coming from their own side of the fence - this discussion would probably get a lot more civil and productive.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   

CO2 does not contribute to global warming by heating itself up, and then conducting that heat somehow to other parts of the atmosphere. It simply acts as a tennis racket, bouncing outgoing radiation around, some of which makes it's way right back to the surface.

I don't disagree with you factually here, just your interpretation of what I wrote. I never claimed that CO2 spontaneously "heated itself up", but that it absorbs heat originated from the Sun and that heat is then distributed throughout the atmosphere.


not even the undisputed natural greenhouse effect that makes our planet 33C warmer

Don't confound the issue. We're talking solely about CO2 here. If all the water vapour in the atmosphere acted effectively as a greenhouse gas it would contribute a massive 96% to the effect, dwarfing any contribution made from CO2.


And yes it does play a significant role even at 0.038%, because all that radiation is so scattered in the first place - it's bound to hit a GHG somewhere on the way up, no matter how "scarce" it might seem from below.

Let's be clear here: we're talking about a trace gas that constitutes 0.038% of the atmosphere. CO2 is about 1 particle of 3,000 spread evenly throughout the atmosphere. Explain to me exactly how 1 particle in the atmosphere can significantly heat up 3,000 particles around it? Man's contribution to that 0.038% is about 3%. Do you really believe that that paltry 3% of 0.038% of the atmosphere that is produced by man's activity is controlling the temperature of the world? Also, as I said, even the IPCC don't think that CO2 by itself can cause significant warming. They rely on feedback factors causing a major amplification of CO2's very, very minor warming effect.


More GHG's simply mean the more likely that radiation is to bounce back - and what this all amounts to isn't so much "heating" the planet as it is merely slowing down it's rate of cooling.

Agreed.


Even denier scientists like Spencer won't touch it with a 50 foot pole. They won't touch it because they know anyone who's ever taken an undergrad course in thermodynamics could debunk it in 12 seconds.

Sigh. I was talking about the atmosphere not having the ability to warm the oceans and the surface of the planet not the stratosphere being able to warm the troposphere.

[edit on 12-8-2010 by Nathan-D]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nathan-D

While 0.038% is not a large number as a PERCENTAGE of the atmosphere, that has NOTHING to do with its contribution to global warming.

It isn't false, at all. Physics would prohibit a gas as scarce as CO2 from significantly heating the atmosphere. When CO2 absorbs IR energy and heats that heat is then distributed over all the molecules in the atmosphere which includes 78% of nitrogen and 21% oxygen.


This is not what's happening.


Given that CO2 only accounts for 0.038% of the atmosphere (or one particle in three thousand) there's no physical way it could significantly heat the atmosphere, unless each particle were heated to thousands of degrees and kept hot allowing it to distribute enough heat to the remaining 3,000 particles in the atmosphere. A simple analogy would be like heating one grain of rice and trying to heat up three thousand other grains of rice with that single grain


No wonder why: you maintain a fundamental misunderstanding of the physics.

I explained it above: molecules of gases absorb infrared radiation which was coming up from the ground, and then re-emit infrared in all angles. Half of it, of course, is pointing back down, so more IR shines back down to the ground than would have been the case without an atmosphere. The cross-section for infrared scattering does vary by an enormous amount depending on the type of molecule. This is an classic experimental fact of physical chemistry. Have all the physical chemists for the last 80 years also been part of the Great Communist Global Warming Hoax---precognitively, of course?

The stratosphere --- where the greenhouse gases in question are primarily active --- is cooling. This is as predicted by physics, in fact, as the enhanced cross section results in more energy radiated away.

The basic picture has been known for a hundred years at least, with serious detailed quantitative computations and experiments going on since the 1950's. The USAF had a strong interest in this for various reasons and atmospheric radiative transfer has been a core scientific subject since that time, pursued by people not necessarily directly interested in climatology though it is a good application. The theory and experiment in it is comprehensively known.

The existence and effect of the natural greenhouse effect is also a scientific fact. Without it, the Earth's temperature would be far lower than todays (deep ice age, in fact). And Venus would be quite pleasant, instead of the waterless oven choked and heated by massive greenhouse CO2 concentrations.

Anybody reading this: on this point there are not two sides of the issue. This is fundamental physics settled decades ago and acknowledged by even the tiny and dwindling handful of denialist climatologists. There are not "uncertainties" here or "global complexities". It's also why professional climatologists now rarely bother to try to correct the misinformation---because when they dig down, 98% of the time they come across scientific howlers which the deluded continue to spout regardless of patient explanations. They conclude correctly that further engagement with an aggressively and intentionally uninformed propagandist is futile. Students often have wrong notions---that's OK, because they generally want to learn.

The 2% of worth talking about gets published in professional journals (with a minimum sense cutoff) where there's an actual question.
Most of the time, upon serious investigation the mainstream picture stays in place, sometimes with minor technical corrections which do not influence the overall results.

A theme that I see frequently is that the skeptics/deniers feel that the effect has to be "common sense" and reject explanations which don't fit their uninformed intuition. One thing that you learn quickly upon studying modern physics is that "horse sense" doesn't work. Humans don't see infrared. We don't live in space. We don't have skin that stretches for 100 square kilometers. And horses don't know dung about physics.


[edit on 12-8-2010 by mbkennel]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   

The existence and effect of the natural greenhouse effect is also a scientific fact. Without it, the Earth's temperature would be far lower than todays (deep ice age, in fact). And Venus would be quite pleasant, instead of the waterless oven choked and heated by massive greenhouse CO2 concentrations.

The reason why Venus is so hot is because it's atmosphere is so dense; about 90 times denser than Earth's. It has nothing to do with the super-high concentrations of CO2. Mars' atmosphere is around 97% CO2, and it's not 400 degrees like Venus... instead, it's minus 60 degrees. Venus is hot because of the enormously high atmospheric pressures. The high pressures would create high temperatures regardless of CO2. And the reason Mars is so cold is because it has such a thin atmosphere, for the opposite reason Venus is so hot. And yes, I agree, without greenhouse gases the temperature of the Earth would be boiling in the day and freezing at night, it would be inhospitable, but what you're overlooking is that water vapour contributes to nearly all of the greenhouse effect; around 96% (if it all acted effectively), dwarfing the contribution made by CO2 and CH4. Cloud cover and water vapour regulate the Earth's temperature a lot more than CO2 can ever hope of.


I explained it above: molecules of gases absorb infrared radiation which was coming up from the ground, and then re-emit infrared in all angles. Half of it, of course, is pointing back down, so more IR shines back down to the ground than would have been the case without an atmosphere.

Well obviously, CO2 re-radiates in all directions and increasing levels of CO2 will increase the amount of energy being re-radiated back to the surface. The fact CO2 has a minor heating effect is not in doubt. The only question that matters is whether the heating effect is significant and dangerous enough to transform the energy economies of the world and impose carbon taxes on the public? I think not. What matters, above all else though, is the hotspot, as that's the signature of positive feedback assumed in the PCMs, and without the hotspot, there is catastrophic warming, regardless of CO2's effect.


Anybody reading this: on this point there are not two sides of the issue. This is fundamental physics settled decades ago and acknowledged by even the tiny and dwindling handful of denialist climatologists. There are not "uncertainties" here or "global complexities".

Actually, there are hundreds of distinguished and credible scientists on the rapidly growing list of dissenters.


The stratosphere --- where the greenhouse gases in question are primarily active --- is cooling. This is as predicted by physics, in fact, as the enhanced cross section results in more energy radiated away.

You do realise that the warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere claimed to be the signature of CO2 is also the signature of decreasing ozone levels?

[edit on 12-8-2010 by Nathan-D]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Nathan-D
 


Ok, but you're still misinterpreting how the greenhouse effect works - even though you apparently agreed with the part where I explained it.

1. CO2 doesn't absorb heat "originating from the Sun". If it did it would cool the surface, not warm it. The Sun's rays, because they mostly consist of frequencies above the infrared, pass right through CO2 on their way in. They are absorbed by plants, minerals, oceans, etc on the surface which then convert this energy mainly into thermal/infrared. That energy needs to make its way back off this floating rock to prevent the Earth from simply accumulating heat to infinity.

2. All CO2 does is intercept some of that outgoing energy and return to sender. But we are talking strictly radiation, not convection or conduction at this point. It has nothing to do with CO2 "heating up" at all, never mind the spontaneous part. So again - the atmosphere does not warm the Earth. Not the surface, not the oceans. The Sun warms it all. The atmosphere simply insulates that warmth after the Sun's done it's job.

3. The oceans mediate some of this trapped energy by absorbing it, but they are not stealing it from the atmosphere, they are merely collecting the excess that's now lying around as a result. But regardless, the important point is that equilibrium dictates that outgoing terrestrial energy must match incoming solar energy, otherwise there'd be a runaway effect and a very serious problem. Oceans can't simply sweep all this under the rug forever. In a broader sense this means that if any outgoing radiation is being trapped - everything is going to have to radiate at a hotter temperature to restore that balance again.

4. So in fact a warmer surface will warm the atmosphere - through things like convection and conduction. Thus CO2 will eventually warm up with everything else, but this is an effect of the warming cycle it initiated, not a cause.



Let's be clear here: we're talking about a trace gas that constitutes 0.038% of the atmosphere. CO2 is about 1 particle of 3,000 spread evenly throughout the atmosphere. Explain to me exactly how 1 particle in the atmosphere can significantly heat up 3,000 particles around it?


Because as explained above, that 1 particle is not directly heating those 3,000 particles. You have this concept completely wrong, and until you figure it out I don't know how to help you. Extra CO2 is merely enhancing the much bigger process that already heats those 3,000 particles. Also you are not being clear here. You are focusing on superficial percentages that deliberately distort the gravity of what's actually happening. I've already shown you before how this technique is central to the denial industry M.O.

You need to understand that CO2 doesn't just have a quantity in the atmosphere, it also has a potency. Pound for pound it is a much stronger GHG than water vapour. I already explained why in that other thread. CO2 also functions as a GHG at important wavelengths where H2O does not:



So if you want me to stop saying you're being brainwashed by denier propaganda, then you need to focus on the real evidence and not their over-simplified, distorted versions of it.

Because here we go again:


Man's contribution to that 0.038% is about 3%.

No it's not.

Industrial emmissions have raised CO2 concentration from 280 ppm to 390, and still growing. 110/280 is 39%. This calculation also ignores all the other GHG's that factor in when we talk about the concept of a CO2 "doubling". Which blog are you getting a ridiculous statistic like 3% from?



Sigh. I was talking about the atmosphere not having the ability to warm the oceans and the surface of the planet not the stratosphere being able to warm the troposphere.


You regurgitated a notorious denier myth that tries to use a piss-poor understanding of physics to undermine the ENTIRE greenhouse effect. It's been torn to shreds on ATS before. And it doesn't matter which part you focused on, it's completely wrong on every level. I don't even know why you brought up the stratosphere vs. troposphere - Spencer's post debunks the whole thing with a few blanket statements, since it requires little more.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 



They conclude correctly that further engagement with an aggressively and intentionally uninformed propagandist is futile.


Don't remind me - it makes me depressed thinking about how much time we waste fruitlessly taking this cause up for them



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Nathan-D
 


Nathan, here, please check this out, it's quite an easy read:

www.luc.edu...



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nathan-D

The existence and effect of the natural greenhouse effect is also a scientific fact. Without it, the Earth's temperature would be far lower than todays (deep ice age, in fact). And Venus would be quite pleasant, instead of the waterless oven choked and heated by massive greenhouse CO2 concentrations.

The reason why Venus is so hot is because it's atmosphere is so dense; about 90 times denser than Earth's. It has nothing to do with the super-high concentrations of CO2. '


Explain your the physics how a dense atmosphere results in higher surface temperature



Mars' atmosphere is around 97% CO2, and it's not 400 degrees like Venus... instead, it's minus 60 degrees.


It's also quite a bit further from the Sun.


Venus is hot because of the enormously high atmospheric pressures. The high pressures would create high temperatures regardless of CO2. And the reason Mars is so cold is because it has such a thin atmosphere, for the opposite reason Venus is so hot. And yes, I agree, without greenhouse gases the temperature of the Earth would be boiling in the day and freezing at night, it would be inhospitable, but what you're overlooking is that water vapour contributes to nearly all of the greenhouse effect; around 96% (if it all acted effectively), dwarfing the contribution made by CO2 and CH4. Cloud cover and water vapour regulate the Earth's temperature a lot more than CO2 can ever hope of.


Explain why you think that H2O is a more important greenhouse gas than the numerically more numerous N2 and O2 molecules. What is the physics of that?

(Actual science says that the water vapor contribution to greenhouse effect is more on the order of 50%, not 96%---however of course it is not an independently additive effect, it depends on your definition. Most useful is with respect to perturbations from current atmospheric composition.)



I explained it above: molecules of gases absorb infrared radiation which was coming up from the ground, and then re-emit infrared in all angles. Half of it, of course, is pointing back down, so more IR shines back down to the ground than would have been the case without an atmosphere.



Well obviously, CO2 re-radiates in all directions and increasing levels of CO2 will increase the amount of energy being re-radiated back to the surface. The fact CO2 has a minor heating effect is not in doubt. The only question that matters is whether the heating effect is significant and dangerous enough to transform the energy economies of the world and impose carbon taxes on the public? I think not.


Why is your thinking better than people who have done the actual detailed computations with the proper physics and quantitatively calibrated measurements?

Don't underestimate how a "small change" in physics terms is a big change in human terms. The absolute average temperature of the earth in Kelvin is what, 280, 290K? Whatever, around that number. How much of a difference does a few degrees make? Take 5 degrees, that's less than 2% in physics units. 5 degrees is the difference between today and the depth of a recent Ice Age -- and that was triggered by feedbacks amplifying very small orbital influences on solar insolation and seasonality. In that Ice Age, the ice was two miles thick in New York. That's 5 degrees on the cold side, and would have been civilization-extinction, with the end of all agriculture outside a very small region. And that's just 2% different in physical temperature units.




Anybody reading this: on this point there are not two sides of the issue. This is fundamental physics settled decades ago and acknowledged by even the tiny and dwindling handful of denialist climatologists. There are not "uncertainties" here or "global complexities".

Actually, there are hundreds of distinguished and credible scientists on the rapidly growing list of dissenters.


about the physics of the greenhouse effect? None.


The stratosphere --- where the greenhouse gases in question are primarily active --- is cooling. This is as predicted by physics, in fact, as the enhanced cross section results in more energy radiated away.

You do realise that the warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere claimed to be the signature of CO2 is also the signature of decreasing ozone levels?
[edit on 12-8-2010 by Nathan-D]

Yes. Is the ozone decreasing quantitatively and commensurately?

[edit on 12-8-2010 by mbkennel]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Le Colonel
 





If maybe Humans took the temperature for lets say, 1000 years, or more, then maybe I would start to listen,,



how about 400,000? Or would you tune that out also?








[edit on 12-8-2010 by ErEhWoN]

[edit on 12-8-2010 by ErEhWoN]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   
mbkennel and mc_squared...

You are now my new friends. Thanks for responding to Nathan, I believe you covered everything AND MORE! Otherwise I would have had to do all the typing work.


And on the topic of arguing with propagandists... I personally think that many deniers go into the issue wanting the truth and wanting to hear all the facts. Of course their mindset tends to focus more on the more exciting/paranoid and less actually dire/life-changing "side" of it... but ultimately we must trust that each human CAN and WILL (at some point) change their minds when presented with irrefutable/rational facts. Also we must consider any fence-sitters/on-lookers who are reading this discussion right now... we wouldn't want them to base their knowledge/opinion on bogus facts and bad science would we?

So I give us all a pat on the back, every little bit counts, and people CAN be informed about global warming above the racket of propaganda/conspiracy theory that supports hidden agendas (of the fossil fuel industry) that constitute the REAL conspiracy theory.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I made this post not to long ago ...on some iinfound while researching alot on the Warming o the Eart and the Solar system and the ISM ..and its effects on the solar system ad the Sun...you may find it enlightening

www.abovetopsecret.com...

same subject deferent post with some other links and info...

[edit on 12-8-2010 by Vonour]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by mc_squared
 

This is going to be my final reply because it's becoming rather tiresome. I haven't got the time or truthfully the inclination to address all your points.


You need to understand that CO2 doesn't just have a quantity in the atmosphere, it also has a potency. Pound for pound it is a much stronger GHG than water vapour. I already explained why in that other thread. CO2 also functions as a GHG at important wavelengths where H2O does not.

No, molecule for molecule, water vapour is by far a potent greenhouse gas than CO2 because it absorbs energy over a far wider energy-wave-spectrum, from infrared to visible light.

You can see from the graph presented below (it's a bit clearer than the one you posted), the frequencies of light that are not marked as yellow in the CO2 line and not absorbed by CO2, no matter how much CO2 there is. Furthermore, notice many of the wavelengths that CO2 prefers overlaps with water vapour. This means that unless the Sun puts out more light, there is only so much absorbing CO2 can do. Absorption-wise, water vapour clearly overwhelms CO2.


I'll repeat this once again, because you've ignored it twice: even the IPCC don't think that CO2 by itself can cause dangerous warming if atmospheric-concentrations doubled. They rely on feedback factors to strongly amplify CO2's minor warming effect. Do you disagree with the IPCC?

Here is an adapted graph from AR4:




1. CO2 doesn't absorb heat "originating from the Sun".

Yes it does. CO2 merely stores part of the energy (heat) that originated from the Sun. Greenhouse gases absorb the energy that radiates from the Sun when it shines and from the Earth when it has been warmed by the Sun (oddly, you sort of explained that at the same time while saying I was mistaken. Odd).


Industrial emissions have raised CO2 concentration from 280 ppm to 390, and still growing. 110/280 is 39%. This calculation also ignores all the other GHG's that factor in when we talk about the concept of a CO2 "doubling".

How do you know that the increase from 280-390ppm is anthropogenically-derived?

You still haven't shown any evidence that CO2 can catastrophically heat the planet.

[edit on 12-8-2010 by Nathan-D]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   


Yes it does. CO2 merely stores part of the energy (heat) that originated from the Sun. Greenhouse gases absorb the energy that radiates from the Sun when it shines and from the Earth when it has been warmed by the Sun (oddly, you sort of explained that at the same time while saying I was mistaken. Odd).


No! The heat capacity/energy storage of the atmospheric CO2 is irrelevant!

CO2 changes the opacity to infrared so that the equilibrium temperature of the surface is higher than otherwise. It's the scattering that matters. When you're at ground level you get shined on by visible from the Sun and IR from the atmosphere. More greenhouse gases->more IR->higher surface temperature.



new topics

top topics



 
63
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join