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.

 

The Earth Is NOT A Greenhouse

page: 3
27
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Before I counter your points, which are well-received, I urge you to read the material. I can tell you haven't yet because there are tons of experiments that have already been done to prove greenhouse gas and CO2 irrelevant in the discussion.

Because of the whole Climate Gate incident, a very large group of climate scientists have been collaborating together in a way that hasn't been done in probably 100+ years. They all agree, for the reasons I've mentioned already, that your understanding of back-radiation is incorrect and was based on bad calculus. This has been established as accepted fact.

If you did the small experiment I referred to, you'd see for yourself that a simple heating element, with your hand 6 inches below it, and 6 inches above it, will absolutely feel different in the amount of heat because the heat doesn't radiate down to the cooler air below the heating element.

I'll be back later to counter your other points.

~Namaste




posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   


But the equilibrium temperature will be higher with greenhouse gases than without them. If I kept the incoming energy constant, and lowered the outgoing energy, temperature has to increase. You can reach arbitrarily high temperatures with arbitrarily low energy influx, if you decrease the leaving energy accordingly. Thats how nuclear meltdown happens - even when the output of the fission products is a small fraction of the full power, once the cooling fails, temperature can increase to very high levels. Or try to insulate your processor, and see what happens, even if you keep it idle.

Temperature is a function of incoming and outgoing energy. Absolute energy levels dont matter, only the diference between the two.
reply to post by Maslo
 


There are a couple of issues with your premise. First, let me say again, the change in temperature from greenhouse gas, specifically CO2, is negligible. Second, the sun does not provide a constant incoming energy because we have 12+ hours of darkness each day, not to mention the flux in the sun itself. (proton emission, solar wind, etc). Third, energy comes in many forms, and again, I think you are confusing energy with heat. If you bombard the atmosphere with radiowaves, this is a form of energy, but would have no effect on temperature whatsoever unless they are of a frequency to cause a REACTION.

If NOTHING were to change, increasing energy without allowing it to leave the system would build more heat, but that is not what is happening with the Earth's atmosphere because you are not considering the rest of the system, the other gases, or the additional variables such as convection and conduction.

I understand you are trying to use the nuclear meltdown and processor as examples of the basic thermodynamics principle, but they are useless in a comparison to climate and how CO2 gas relate to heat for the sake of this discussion.

Your understanding of temperature is false, I'm sorry... I really don't feel you understand the difference between energy and heat. Temperature is not a function of incoming and outgoing energy, it is a measure of the kinetic energy of particles. It is this average kinetic energy of the motion of particles, divided by the Boltzmann Constant which gives you Kelvins, which then converts to other measurements of temperature. It is therefore not a function of energy in and energy out, but energy transferred from one part of the system to the next. For the sake of this discussion, it is the transfer from the CO2 molecule to surrounding particles or space.



That limit is very high, in order to break down the CO2 molecule you need very high temperatures. And as shown above, you dont need increase in energy to increase temperature. Just decrease in outgoing energy.


We're not talking about the break down of CO2, we're talking about the transfer of heat from it. This is also a bad understanding of physics my friend. You can not increase temperature without increasing energy, that is not how physics works. You don't get something for nothing. Your previous example attempted to show that you have to keep the incoming energy constant, so you are contradicting yourself now. Temperature (T) = E/k, where E is the average energy of the particle(s) in question, and k is the Boltzmann Constant, which equals 8.617 339x10−5 eV/K (you can also convert to Joules). So as you can see, for T to increase, so must E because k is constant.



And another well understood aspect is that if you insulate something, temperature increases until its again at equilibrium (gradient is again enough to shed all incoming energy).


Incorrect. Insulation does not increase temperature, only an increase in energy or adding energy to the system will increase temperature as I've already given you the math for. The insulation decreases the rate of entropy so you end up with more energy in the system at a time, which naturally means there will be more heat because there are more particles with less space to move. It is the kinetic movement that temperature is measuring.



Its constant over larger time scales. This regular predictable variation can be averaged out and thus ignored. Climate is not weather.


No it isn't, no climate model of our planet has temperature or energy constant over large time scales. That is ridiculous. There is no regular predictable variation or we wouldn't be having a discussion about why the planet is getting hotter. You can't ignore the changes in temperature, that is how someone who doesn't understand the problem tries to solve it is by ignoring key measurements and observations.

(continued below)



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 




Absolute amount of energy leaving the atmosphere will remain constant and even slightly decrease at night (since the gases are colder and emit less IR). But what hugely decreases during the night is incoming energy.


Your statement is inaccurate. There is no such thing as an "absolute amount of energy leaving the atmosphere", and if there were, it would not remain constant. NASA has confirmed through satellite observation and direct measurements of the troposphere and stratosphere that the amount of heat being released into space is far greater than predicted by alarmists. Please see my previous references to source articles and papers.

When discussing climate of a planet, you can not keep using the term "constant" because there are no constants except in specific calculations of mass, energy, etc. To say that the amount of energy will be constant is highly inaccurate. Hopefully, you meant something else and didn't specify it.



If you dont believe CO2 can cause warming, how do you explain the results of this experiment?: www.espere.net...


That experiment is a joke man.... seriously???
Now I'm really questioning your understanding of things and whether or not you really do research or just pull links from Google. That experiment is of a "greenhouse effect", as in a real glass greenhouse. If you didn't notice in the pictures, they are using GLASS CONTAINERS! That is not how the climate of the Earth behaves and I've already gone through that point multiple times. You are about 2-3 years behind the real scientific discussions and debates, which is what I'm trying to give you to look at so you have the information needed to see that the Greenhouse Gas Theory is a farce, and therefore, so is man-made global warming. The discussions have advanced to other things, such as interstellar gas clouds, solar interactions, changes in the Milankovich cycles, etc. This is dead and buried.

To be completely honest, that experiment looks like a high-school science project, not a professionally conducted or written experiment by a body of certified experts.



As I said, I am not going to argue about quantitative claims. But still, this is only the warming due to CO2. The problem is possibility of positive feedback. Water vapor is far stronger greenhouse gas, and any increase in temperature also increases vapor concentration. The same with permafrost methane. If we only light the fuse, arent we still responsible for the bomb going off?


But it's the quantitative claims that destroys this argument. The physics of CO2 don't provide for the scenario of a global warming theory, it just doesn't work once you put the theory under a microscope. The only warming by CO2 is not even measurable because it is so little. .03% of the gas in the atmosphere does not have the capacity to increase temperature in a way that should ever be a concern for humans.

An increase in temperature also does not mean a direct increase in water vapor unless there is a source of water. If it only gets hotter over a desert, there is going to be less vapor than if it gets hotter over an entire ocean. Due to the angle of the planet, the whole planet NEVER warms the same way, it is always in flux.

I would really recommend you go back and read my previous posts, because you going down a path with your mental model of climate that is taking you away from the current advances and theories. I don't need to disprove the greenhouse gas theory, it's already been done by people more qualified than myself. And once you can prove that the theory is false, there is no reason to continue to try and prove it, it's over. You have to move on to other theories and continue to prove or disprove them until you are left with experimental proof (usually) to support the theory until someone else can disprove it, and this continues as theories are refined. This is the scientific method and how it normally works.

Please don't take offense to my comments, I'm really trying to help you and others to stop blaming ourselves for something we didn't do. To stop voting for morons and puppets who know nothing about science, yet they parrot whatever they hear because they think it will get them votes and campaign contributions. This is what bad science does to people, and it's giving science in general a bad name.

I hope this helps.

~Namaste



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 




Second, the sun does not provide a constant incoming energy because we have 12+ hours of darkness each day, not to mention the flux in the sun itself. (proton emission, solar wind, etc).


The Sun provides constant amount of energy over the time scales in question (last 200 years).



Third, energy comes in many forms, and again, I think you are confusing energy with heat. If you bombard the atmosphere with radiowaves, this is a form of energy, but would have no effect on temperature whatsoever unless they are of a frequency to cause a REACTION.


Of course we are not talking about energy that cannot heat the Earth, why are your bringing it out here?
But radiowaves indeed can, since there is no way how they could pass through the whole Earth. And energy cannot be destroyed (but its only a very small amount when it comes to them).



If NOTHING were to change, increasing energy without allowing it to leave the system would build more heat, but that is not what is happening with the Earth's atmosphere because you are not considering the rest of the system, the other gases, or the additional variables such as convection and conduction.


Convection and conduction cannot shed the heat into space, only move the heat within the Earth system (atmopheric molecules are pinned down to Earth by gravity). The only way to actually shed the heat into space is radiative cooling.



Your understanding of temperature is false, I'm sorry... I really don't feel you understand the difference between energy and heat. Temperature is not a function of incoming and outgoing energy, it is a measure of the kinetic energy of particles. It is this average kinetic energy of the motion of particles, divided by the Boltzmann Constant which gives you Kelvins, which then converts to other measurements of temperature. It is therefore not a function of energy in and energy out, but energy transferred from one part of the system to the next. For the sake of this discussion, it is the transfer from the CO2 molecule to surrounding particles or space.


Are you saying that if you increase the incoming energy into a system, and keep the outgoing energy constant, the temperature (and internal energy) would not increase? Or that if f you keep the incoming energy constant, and decrease the outgoing energy, the temperature (and internal energy) would not increase?

Temperature is indeed a measure of the kinetic energy of particles. And this kinetic energy is dependent on the systems energy balance.



You can not increase temperature without increasing energy, that is not how physics works.


My mistake, I worded my response badly. Correction:
That limit is very high, in order to break down the CO2 molecule you need very high temperatures. And as shown above, you dont need increase in incoming energy to increase temperature. Just decrease in outgoing energy (insulation).



Insulation does not increase temperature, only an increase in energy or adding energy to the system will increase temperature as I've already given you the math for.


But the Sun is constantly adding energy to the Earth. If this is true, then insulation will increase temperature (internal energy). You are arguing pointless semantics. Of course the primary cause of any warming is always incoming energy, but thats not what we are talking about. There is no way to turn off the Sun.



The insulation decreases the rate of entropy so you end up with more energy in the system at a time, which naturally means there will be more heat because there are more particles with less space to move. It is the kinetic movement that temperature is measuring.


Which means an insulated system would have higher temperature. Which was my point.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 




No it isn't, no climate model of our planet has temperature or energy constant over large time scales. That is ridiculous. There is no regular predictable variation or we wouldn't be having a discussion about why the planet is getting hotter


We are talking about incoming energy into the system (the radiation of the Sun) being constant. Which is approximately constant over time scales manmade greenhouse effect is supposed to be happening (last 200 years) - there are 11 year variations which can be ignored since they are regular, predictable, and much smaller than the period in question, and there seems to be a small longer term variation that is exactly the opposite of atmospheric temperature variation (so it cannot be the cause of the warming):


So again, we are not talking bout large time scales where solar variation is dominant. Keep this in the time scale of the last 200 years, otherwise you are building a strawman.




Your statement is inaccurate. There is no such thing as an "absolute amount of energy leaving the atmosphere"

NASA has confirmed through satellite observation and direct measurements of the troposphere and stratosphere that the amount of heat being released into space is far greater than predicted by alarmists.


Your second sentence contradicts the first. If there is no such thing as absolute amount of energy leaving the atmosphere, what has NASA measured?

Whether its greater or not is a quantitative claim, I am not going to argue about it. I only correct your incorrect qualitative statements.



That experiment is a joke man.... seriously??? Now I'm really questioning your understanding of things and whether or not you really do research or just pull links from Google. That experiment is of a "greenhouse effect", as in a real glass greenhouse. If you didn't notice in the pictures, they are using GLASS CONTAINERS! That is not how the climate of the Earth behaves and I've already gone through that point multiple times. You are about 2-3 years behind the real scientific discussions and debates, which is what I'm trying to give you to look at so you have the information needed to see that the Greenhouse Gas Theory is a farce, and therefore, so is man-made global warming. The discussions have advanced to other things, such as interstellar gas clouds, solar interactions, changes in the Milankovich cycles, etc. This is dead and buried.


I question your knowledge of the scientific method. There are TWO experiments, and the ONLY difference between them is the presence of CO2. Glass containers cannot cause the observed excess warming in one container, since they are present in both experiments, and warming is observed only in one.

Sometimes a simple high-school experiment is enough to point out incorrect claims, such as that greenhouse effect somehow violates thermodynamics. I am not going to argue about interstellar gas clouds, solar interactions, changes in the Milankovich cycles, etc.. I think its indeed possible that manmade global warming could be shown to be caused by these things in the end. The whole discussion started after I corrected your claims about thermodynamical impossibility of GW, nothing about interstellar gas clouds has been said, so it is off-topic.
This experiment is enough to show CO2 caused warming does not violate thermodynamics. Thats my whole point.

The glass containers in this experiment are analogous to Earth gravity - they just hold the molecules in place (prevent convective shedding of heat). The cause of excess warming in one container is clearly the increased CO2 concentration.



But it's the quantitative claims that destroys this argument.


OK. But you did not use quantitative arguments earlier. You used qualitative argument, namely that AGW would violate thermodynamics. No that AGW is thermodynamically possible, but in th end very small. That is something I can agree is possible.



If it only gets hotter over a desert, there is going to be less vapor than if it gets hotter over an entire ocean.


The CO2 does not increase only over deserts, that would be termodynamically impossible. There is no way how it would not affect the oceans, which make majority of the Earth surface.



I would really recommend you go back and read my previous posts, because you going down a path with your mental model of climate that is taking you away from the current advances and theories. I don't need to disprove the greenhouse gas theory, it's already been done by people more qualified than myself.


Majority of scientists agree that GG theory is real. Nothing has been disproven, maybe only disputed
edit on 19/4/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne
So my question still remains and I'm really interested in what ATS members think is the cause of the warming?

The oceans will act as a heat sink, but how long does it take before the oceans will start radiating that heat back out or equalize temperature? At what point does that happen and at what point does CO2 begin to be released from the oceans?

I think these are important questions to answer to understand what's happening. The Earth is definitely getting warmer, and there is an increase of CO2, supposedly as a result of the change, so what is fueling the warmth?


Greenhouse gases. The change in the CO2 currently in the atmosphere is not a result of heating, it is the result of fossil fuel emissions. This is confirmed by the isotopic distribution.



Is it just a perfect storm of cosmic rays increasing, interstellar gas increasing solar radiance, Pacific Decadel Oscillation and other factors?


No, it is from increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. Cosmic rays and solar irradiance show no recent pattern or explanatory power for currently observed warming.



We're obviously not going to turn into Venus, because we have clouds and Venus does not...


Venus is almost completely covered with clouds.


but what history shows us is that this trend in warming happens right before going into a glacial period and things get really cold for a few hundred or possibly, thousand years. What might we see in our lifetimes?


We cannot rely on history because the historical record since the evolution of man from the common ancestor with apes the fossil carbon stayed in the ground. We are digging it up now.

We can rely on the implications from the laws of physics.
edit on 19-4-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-4-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   


The Sun provides constant amount of energy over the time scales in question (last 200 years).
reply to post by Maslo
 


I have proven so many of your statements to be false, I'm getting a bit frustrated. You clearly don't understand many of the concepts that thousands of climate scientists have demonstrated and have not read any of the source material, or you wouldn't be beating the same dead horse.

As for the above statement, please provide proof by way of experiment or observation that your statement is true and that the energy from the sun is "constant", which means it NEVER changes. I don't believe it and anyone who has an ounce of logic and isn't just trying to stay on the AGW wagon would know better than to say that the output of the sun is constant. Just go to spacewather.com and look at the daily energy from the sun. You totally ignored the points that destroy your statement, such as solar wind and photon emissions. These are DIRECT measurements of the sun's output, not some opinion of yours. I'm not going to keep arguing that point, you are flat out wrong.



Convection and conduction cannot shed the heat into space, only move the heat within the Earth system (atmopheric molecules are pinned down to Earth by gravity). The only way to actually shed the heat into space is radiative cooling.


Again, you are not considering the entire system when it comes to climate, only what one portion of the system is doing (the CO2). Conduction and convection are what move the particles, thus kinetic energy, thus changes in temperature. How do you think the heat gets to the atmosphere to be shed in the first place? Radiation alone? That's laughable.

To calculate ANY heat flow in ANY system, you have to consider all three... convection, conduction and radiation. You are wrong and your logic is wrong and you are making presumptions rather than logical conclusions. You don't understand all of the necessary teachings with regard to climate science to make a coherent argument.

First you say:


Temperature is a function of incoming and outgoing energy.


Then you say:


Temperature is indeed a measure of the kinetic energy of particles.


Which one is it? You obviously don't know or are confusing yourself because you don't understand the physical laws at work.



That limit is very high, in order to break down the CO2 molecule you need very high temperatures. And as shown above, you dont need increase in incoming energy to increase temperature. Just decrease in outgoing energy (insulation).


CO2 "breaking down" has nothing to do with temperature changing. What does one statement about incoming energy have to do with CO2 breaking down and what does CO2 breaking down have to do with climate change? You are speaking in circles. CO2 is NOT insulation, it is a gas, and as I've explained several times, it has a very specific capacity for retaining heat. Your understanding would be correct if the system were closed, but it is not, and this is a serious flaw in your logic. You keep ignoring it, but you can't... that's called ignorance.



But the Sun is constantly adding energy to the Earth. If this is true, then insulation will increase temperature (internal energy). You are arguing pointless semantics. Of course the primary cause of any warming is always incoming energy, but thats not what we are talking about. There is no way to turn off the Sun.


The sun is constantly adding VARIABLE amounts of energy. You are vastly over-simplifying an extremely complex set of problems to fit your own ideas. This is not science. CO2 is not insulation, no matter how you try to explain it. Insulation is a solid. CO2 is a gas.

First you say:


We are talking about incoming energy into the system (the radiation of the Sun) being constant.


Then you say:


Which is approximately constant over time scales manmade greenhouse effect is supposed to be happening (last 200 years)


Completely contradicting yourself while supporting my argument the entire time. The energy is not constant. You're a fool to believe such a thing. You can't just take the last 200 years and ignore all of the other years of climate when similar patterns existed thousands of years before humans.



So again, we are not talking bout large time scales where solar variation is dominant. Keep this in the time scale of the last 200 years, otherwise you are building a strawman.


Solar variation has to be considered for all climate models, and you have balls to say I'm building a strawman. This is my thread, and I posted TONS of data, and related papers when you present nothing more than a high-school science experiment.

(continued)



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
I love global warming... more food, warmer temperatures......."Reducing carbon emissions to stop global warming"
might as well get rid of humans as we breath out carbon dioxide and all the plants that feed off of carbon dioxide. Please stop the carbon emissions I miss the ice age.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 




Your second sentence contradicts the first. If there is no such thing as absolute amount of energy leaving the atmosphere, what has NASA measured?


It most certainly does not. I suggest you read it again. NASA has measured MORE heat leaving the Earth than predicted by AGW proponents. There is nothing contradictory. I never said anything about constant energy, you did. The NASA measurements don't show a constant rate either, it changes and is variable but well within a predictable range. You apparently DIDN'T READ THE PAPER(S)!!!!



This experiment is enough to show CO2 caused warming does not violate thermodynamics. Thats my whole point. The glass containers in this experiment are analogous to Earth gravity - they just hold the molecules in place (prevent convective shedding of heat). The cause of excess warming in one container is clearly the increased CO2 concentration.


A glass container demonstrates the greenhouse effect. The Earth does not. A glass container is not analogous to the Earth's gravity. CO2 and glass are completely different physical entities. Please demonstrate your claim with the proper math to support. And show me how your glass container experiment accounts for convection and conduction as well as the radiation, and all of the noble gases that are found in the atmosphere. Please also show that the amounts of those gases and the pressure match those found in the atmosphere.



Majority of scientists agree that GG theory is real. Nothing has been disproven, maybe only disputed


That is absolutely false. Now I know you haven't read the references I've provided. There are 31,000 scientists and growing that all signed a petition objecting to greenhouse gas theory and AGW, and over 750+ peer-reviewed papers that show direct evidence against it. This shows that you are far-removed from those discussions and the advances that have been made over the past few years. This is why I can not continue to debate you because your understanding is flawed and you refuse to even verse yourself in the literature that has been provided. I have given reference after reference, peer-reviewed papers, award-winning scientists in the field whose papers have not been disputed but are WELCOMED by other scientists in the field. Even the most staunch of AGW supporters have turned away from this theory in light of new evidence, observations and models.

Here is yet another, recently acclaimed and accepted, peer-reviewed publication with enormous evidence against AGW - www.scirp.org... - I bet you don't read this one either.

Here is the important part of the abstract:



Because of this lack of tangible evidence it is time to acknowledge that the atmospheric greenhouse effect and especially its climatic impact are based on meritless conjectures.


The violation of the second law is a simple concept. You can not transfer heat downward. Radiation is not the same as heat. Radiation and heat are different types of energy. You can not move something from hotter to colder, so please show how you are right, and heat moves from hot to cold?

I've already explained to you why you are wrong with proof, now it's up to you to show how you are right. No high-school experiments. Look at the paper I just provided and give strong, clear arguments with your math to back it up. I've given everything necessary for this discussion from the physics, to the math, to the sourced material and you have nothing better to say except that the energy from the sun is constant and that CO2 acts as insulation, therefore things get hotter. You would be laughed out of academic circles with those arguments.

I have spent quite a bit of time give you evidence that counters your claims. I've shown you that the scientific community at large has ditched the idea of greenhouse gas causing warming. I don't understand why you won't bother to educate yourself with the information presented?

Anyway, I'm done with this part of the discussion. If you want to argue your points, go do it with other scientists. I have tried to be nice with my explanations, to help you and others understand the science, but I must not be doing a good job because after HOURS of me reading your posts and replying with clarity, you continue to argue in circles and contradict yourself.

If you want honest discussion, I'm happy to do so, but I have to give others an equal amount of time.

I appreciate your contributions, but without having read the materials I've referenced, you are not going to understand the talking points of this discussion.

~Namaste




edit on 19-4-2012 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 




Greenhouse gases. The change in the CO2 currently in the atmosphere is not a result of heating, it is the result of fossil fuel emissions. This is confirmed by the isotopic distribution.


False. Isotopic distribution is but one factor in global warming, and a small one at that. Please read the source material I've provided. If you doubled the isotopic distribution (fancy talk for the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere), it would only change the temperature by .03-07%. This is not debated and is widely accepted. With the entire atmosphere comprising of only .03% of CO2 out of all of the other gases, the impact on temperature is negligible.



No, it is from increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. Cosmic rays and solar irradiance show no recent pattern or explanatory power for currently observed warming.


Please show proof that it is caused by greenhouse gas alone. I recommend you read "Slaying the Sky Dragon" for a more in depth understanding of the flaws in the greenhouse gas theory and why it has been denounced by the scientific community. You should also take a look at the Solar Inertial Motion theory as it is making a huge impact on the community due to it's linking with drastic changes in climate around 1816.



Venus is almost completely covered with clouds.


PLEASE, take the time to read through the thread. I already followed-up on this comment. Venus does NOT have water vapor on it, which is what OUR clouds are made of. When I referred to clouds, I was talking about water vapor. It is theorized that Venus had water vapor at one point, but there is not a shred of evidence that corroborates that, so as it stands today, there is no water vapor on Venus and therefore, the clouds are made of sulfuric acid, not water.



We can rely on the implications from the laws of physics.


Exactly. Go study them because clearly, you don't understand the point of this thread, which is that the physics don't match the claims of AGW proponents such as yourself.

If you aren't going to consider both sides of the debate and read the information that disputes your understanding, I'm not going to spend the time arguing about it. I've listened to both sides of this debate for over a decade and there is far more complexities than a simple thread is going to reveal.

I can only guess that the one star you got was from Maslo because your post is vacuous and contains nothing of substance. I'm shocked that the arguments being presented are picking at semantics and not the core of the presented material.

I hope this isn't the best ATS has to offer.

~Namaste
edit on 19-4-2012 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 




As for the above statement, please provide proof by way of experiment or observation that your statement is true and that the energy from the sun is "constant", which means it NEVER changes.


I have already provided you with the data:



Unless you have a way to twist the above graph into showing correlation between the (aproximately constant) insolation and measured increasing atmospheric temperature, there can be no casual link between it and observed GW.
If the warming is caused by solar variation, why is insolation slightly decreasing, while temperature is increasing?



Again, you are not considering the entire system when it comes to climate, only what one portion of the system is doing (the CO2). Conduction and convection are what move the particles, thus kinetic energy, thus changes in temperature. How do you think the heat gets to the atmosphere to be shed in the first place? Radiation alone? That's laughable.


But heat movements inside the atmosphere are irrelevant, since they do not cool the Earth, only move the heat from one place in the atmosphere to another place in the atmosphere, but the heat stays in the atmosphere. They do not affect the global average temperature, only radiation can actually cool the planet (shed the energy into space).



To calculate ANY heat flow in ANY system, you have to consider all three... convection, conduction and radiation.


To calculate heat flow out of the Earth system that is convectively and conductively isolated (our planet in space), you need to consider only radiation. Convective and conductive heat movements do not cool the planet as a whole, only move the energy from one place in the atmosphere to another.



Which one is it? You obviously don't know or are confusing yourself because you don't understand the physical laws at work.


It is both of course:
Temperature (a measure of the kinetic energy of particles) is a function of incoming and outgoing energy.



CO2 "breaking down" has nothing to do with temperature changing. What does one statement about incoming energy have to do with CO2 breaking down and what does CO2 breaking down have to do with climate change?


It was a response to this claim, which seems to imply there is a limit on how much heat could CO2 molecules absorb:


There is only so much heat that CO2 molecules could absorb simply due to their mass and the number of existing CO2 molecules in the atmosphere.


CO2 molecules can absorb "heat" until they are no longer CO2 molecules.
You probably meant IR, not heat.



CO2 is NOT insulation, it is a gas, and as I've explained several times, it has a very specific capacity for retaining heat.


Heat capacity of CO2 is not important (it gives off the heat to other atmospheric gasses anyway if heaten), only its ability to redirect IR radiation. That is not related to its heat capacity at all. One is a thermal property, the other is a spectral property.



A glass container is not analogous to the Earth's gravity.


Glass container holds gasses (prevents hottest molecules from escaping), gravity holds gasses (prevents hottest molecules from escaping). Analogous.



CO2 and glass are completely different physical entities.


Of course they are, I have never claimed they are not. Glass containers play the role of gravity, not CO2.



Please demonstrate your claim with the proper math to support.


There is no need for complex math in such a simple experiment.



And show me how your glass container experiment accounts for convection and conduction as well as the radiation, and all of the noble gases that are found in the atmosphere.


Of course the heat inside the containers convects and is conducted, there is nothing preventing it. It cannot convect and conduct heat out of the containers, just as atmosphere cannot convect and conduct heat into space.

Noble gases are there, since the mixture is air and CO2 enriched air, both which contain noble gases.



Please also show that the amounts of those gases and the pressure match those found in the atmosphere.


I dont need to, my argument is qualitative, not quantitative. Greenhouse effect is real, and does not violate thermodynamics. The actual magnitude if it can indeed be small, I just corrected your claim that there can be no greenhouse effect, since it would violate thermodynamics. It obviously does not.
edit on 20/4/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 04:12 AM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 




That is absolutely false. Now I know you haven't read the references I've provided. There are 31,000 scientists and growing that all signed a petition objecting to greenhouse gas theory and AGW, and over 750+ peer-reviewed papers that show direct evidence against it.


Ah, the well-known OISM fraud....

www.skepticalscience.com...
The 30,000 scientists and science graduates listed on the OISM petition represent a tiny fraction (0.3%) of all science graduates. More importantly, the OISM list only contains 39 scientists who specialise in climate science.

0,3% of US scientists (only 39 climatologists, and which apparently includes such unrelated fields as medical doctors, and even bachelors) cannot justify your bold claims all over this thread about substantial consensus change. The consensus is clear:
www.skepticalscience.com...



CO2 acts as insulation, therefore things get hotter. You would be laughed out of academic circles with those arguments.


Yeah, thats why 95% of scientists specialising in the field agree with the statement.




The violation of the second law is a simple concept. You can not transfer heat downward. Radiation is not the same as heat. Radiation and heat are different types of energy. You can not move something from hotter to colder, so please show how you are right, and heat moves from hot to cold?


IR radiation is not heat, but IR causes heat, and heat causes IR. Thats enough for greenhouse effect to work.
More IR would be transferred in other direction that into space with greenhouse gas present, compared to the situation with no greenhouse gas.
You cannot move heat from hotter to colder, but you certainly can slow down the movement of heat from colder to hotter. You are again using strawmans, I have never claimed the net heat would move from colder to hotter.



I've already explained to you why you are wrong with proof, now it's up to you to show how you are right. No high-school experiments. Look at the paper I just provided and give strong, clear arguments with your math to back it up.


And I have already pointed you to the paper that specifically debunks it: COMMENT ON “FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS


In this journal, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner claim to have falsified the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect.1 Here, we show that their methods, logic, and conclusions are in error. Their most significant errors include trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process, and systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat flows applicable to the Earth's surface and atmosphere. They claim that radiative heat transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface is forbidden, ignoring the larger transfer in the other direction which makes the complete process allowed. Further, by ignoring heat capacity and non-radiative heat flows, they claim that radiative balance requires that the surface cool by 100 K or more at night, an obvious absurdity induced by an unphysical assumption. This comment concentrates on these two major points, while also taking note of some of Gerlich and Tscheuschner's other errors and misunderstandings.

........
The first of these claims in GT09 is the assertion that Clausius’ statement of the
Second Law of Thermodynamics forbids transfer of heat from a colder atmosphere
to a warmer surface. However, the Second Law requires consideration of all heat
flows in a process, so one must simultaneously include the larger transfer of ther-
mal energy from the surface to the atmosphere. Clausius’ statement also does not
impede temperature changes resulting from a change in system properties such as
adding glass to a greenhouse, or adding infrared-absorbing gases to the atmosphere.
Any warming under such a change comes from the gradual build-up of energy and
heat flows to a new steady-state, not the transfer of energy from cold to warm
regions.

edit on 20/4/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 04:21 AM
link   
I starred and flagged the thread just because I think the whole thread is a phenomenal wealth of information, and I'm amazed at the knowledge some here possess. ATS is definitely sometimes a Think Tank.

I thank the OP for the info and I will save the thread as a favorite, even though climate is not my strong suit.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 04:23 AM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 




False. Isotopic distribution is but one factor in global warming, and a small one at that. Please read the source material I've provided.


I will just interject here. He claims the CO2 increase is caused by fossil fuel emissions, and you reply with completely unrelated point about heating... Read his post again:


The change in the CO2 currently in the atmosphere is not a result of heating, it is the result of fossil fuel emissions. This is confirmed by the isotopic distribution.


CO2 from fossil fuels has its own fingerprints. Its isotopic signature is depleted in the carbon-13 isotope, which explains why the atmospheric ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 has been going up as anthropogenic carbon dioxide goes up. If observed increase of CO2 was not caused by fossil fuel burning, the observed ratio would not go up.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


An article you should probably read, it deals precisely with your 2nd law of thermodynamics objections to the greenhouse effect and backradiation:
www.skepticalscience.com...

The atmosphere of the Earth is less able to absorb shortwave radiation from the Sun than thermal radiation coming from the surface. The effect of this disparity is that thermal radiation escaping to space comes mostly from the cold upper atmosphere, while the surface is maintained at a substantially warmer temperature. This is called the "atmospheric greenhouse effect", and without it the Earth's surface would be much colder.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 07:58 AM
link   


I have already provided you with the data:
reply to post by Maslo
 


You call one graph, with no source, data??? Please... my kid could draw that graph, and it has not vetted by anyone and is a graph from Wikipedia.




Unless you have a way to twist the above graph into showing correlation between the (aproximately constant) insolation and measured increasing atmospheric temperature, there can be no casual link between it and observed GW. If the warming is caused by solar variation, why is insolation slightly decreasing, while temperature is increasing?


I didn't say the warming was caused by solar variation, you did... you're trying to put words in my mouth now, which clearly I never said and anyone can verify by reading the thread.

If you even bothered to read the thread, you'd see on page 1 that I posted irrefutable evidence that CO2 lags behind temperature changes and is therefore the effect, not the cause.



But heat movements inside the atmosphere are irrelevant


What a ridiculous statement. You completely ignore physics to support your claim with nothing to back it up. Radiation, as it pertains to climate, does not work without convection and conduction.



To calculate heat flow out of the Earth system that is convectively and conductively isolated (our planet in space), you need to consider only radiation. Convective and conductive heat movements do not cool the planet as a whole, only move the energy from one place in the atmosphere to another.


See above. You are just going in circles now. No radiative calculations or models exist that do not include convection or conduction.



It is both of course: Temperature (a measure of the kinetic energy of particles) is a function of incoming and outgoing energy.


This is not your original statement, and I hope others will call you out on it because now you are trying to back peddle to cover up your inadequate understanding of physics.



CO2 molecules can absorb "heat" until they are no longer CO2 molecules. You probably meant IR, not heat.


I meant heat. Infrared is the radiation given off by heat.



Heat capacity of CO2 is not important (it gives off the heat to other atmospheric gasses anyway if heaten), only its ability to redirect IR radiation. That is not related to its heat capacity at all.


What? That makes no sense... since when is the capacity of CO2 to retain heat not important? The rate at which CO2 irradiates thermal energy is most certainly important.



Glass container holds gasses (prevents hottest molecules from escaping), gravity holds gasses (prevents hottest molecules from escaping). Analogous.


Glass does not emulate gravity, and is no way analogous. Absolutely incorrect. Please show anything that says that glass and gravity are analogous, including in their ability to trap gas.



Glass containers play the role of gravity, not CO2.


Glass can not "play the role of gravity", this is physically impossible. They are completely different.



There is no need for complex math in such a simple experiment.


Because you can't? If it's such a simple experiment, it should be easily verifiable with calculus.

You keep ignoring the facts and trying to strawman your arguments without any evidence. A graph from wikipedia and a high school experiment. A rebuttal to a peer-reviewed paper that only a few scientists support. You use a single source, a known AGW supporting site (it says so on the site) to support your argument about scientists who do or don't support the theory without having a clue about the current theories and evidence.

Skepticalscience.com is not a peer-reviewed source for climate studies and does not represent the current theories put forth by the community.

You keep arguing the same invalid points over and over without having bothered to read ANY of the material I've provided. You put a graph up claiming it's definitive proof, when I have given you sources to papers that show your graph to be inaccurate. The very first page of the thread was about CO2 lagging temperature, and you completely ignored it only to later put your graph up and say that all of the other supporting data in the last 4 years is wrong, including ice cores.

The one rebuttal to one paper you provided was not well-supported, not even by the journal that published it and there are hundreds of other scientists and papers written about it, most of which agree with the basic claim in the paper.

Deny ignorance friend. You clearly don't have a full understanding of this and don't want to, you just want to beat the AGW drum some more, even though that band has long left the stadium.

~Namaste



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


An article you should probably read, it deals precisely with your 2nd law of thermodynamics objections to the greenhouse effect and backradiation:
www.skepticalscience.com...

The atmosphere of the Earth is less able to absorb shortwave radiation from the Sun than thermal radiation coming from the surface. The effect of this disparity is that thermal radiation escaping to space comes mostly from the cold upper atmosphere, while the surface is maintained at a substantially warmer temperature. This is called the "atmospheric greenhouse effect", and without it the Earth's surface would be much colder.


This is ONE view on the discussion. I have hundreds more that support it.

All of your sources are from the same place, a known AGW proponent website, which again, is not peer-reviewed.

You might as well get your studies from a blog. This is not real science friend.

~Namaste



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 




False. Isotopic distribution is but one factor in global warming, and a small one at that. Please read the source material I've provided.


I will just interject here. He claims the CO2 increase is caused by fossil fuel emissions, and you reply with completely unrelated point about heating... Read his post again:


The change in the CO2 currently in the atmosphere is not a result of heating, it is the result of fossil fuel emissions. This is confirmed by the isotopic distribution.


CO2 from fossil fuels has its own fingerprints. Its isotopic signature is depleted in the carbon-13 isotope, which explains why the atmospheric ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 has been going up as anthropogenic carbon dioxide goes up. If observed increase of CO2 was not caused by fossil fuel burning, the observed ratio would not go up.


My argument is not whether or not a specific carbon emission exists in the atmosphere. My argument is that just because it's there does not mean it is causation for warming. Correlation is not causation.

The overall distribution is still meaningless because it is .03% of the total atmosphere and under the laws of physics, not enough to trap the amount of heat necessary to cause any kind of temperature change on Earth.

Again, learn how to read the post... I'm not the one who said anything about heating, HE did, and I followed up with my argument.

Here it is again, in case you missed it:



The change in the CO2 currently in the atmosphere is not a result of heating, it is the result of fossil fuel emissions. This is confirmed by the isotopic distribution.


You can't even get the argument correct. You are debating just to debate and have no foundation for acceptance. You have to "interject" into someone else's post? That's extremely pompous of you... What makes you think they are incapable of their own rebuttal?

He was the one that mentioned heating and isotopic distribution in the same sentence. Now you're trying to strawman.

I don't appreciate where you are trying to take the thread. You're digressing the discussion, not advancing it.

I know for a fact that you haven't read the post or you wouldn't have made such a foolish claim about your graph when I have already shown 7-8 graphs that were presented on page 1 of the Vostok ice cores, the "golden egg" for climate science, which clearly demonstrate CO2 lags temperature.

Here are some more since the information I've given is not enough to satisfy you:

Petit et al

Fischer et al

Monnin et al

Mudelsee

Caillon et al

Palisad

This CLEARLY shows that your argument is utter nonsense and invalidates the rest of your arguments as a result, because it shows you have not done the research necessary to understand what has been determined by science.

CO2 LAGS temperature... this means that global warming is not man-made because it was happening 400,000 years ago.

Just spend the time to read it.

~Namaste



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 




I didn't say the warming was caused by solar variation, you did.


You implied that incoming energy from the sun is not constant. Unless you was arguing pointless semantics, it clearly was to imply that it could be the cause of observed warming, otherwise it would not affect my point at all (if the incoming energy was indeed variable, but not in the way that could explain the observed warming, there is no reason to bring up the point).



If you even bothered to read the thread, you'd see on page 1 that I posted irrefutable evidence that CO2 lags behind temperature changes and is therefore the effect, not the cause.


When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit, so CO2 indeed lags temperature at the beginning. The warming causes the oceans to release CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise (positive feedback). But overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase (is caused by it).


The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles will be simply insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming.

This is of course completely unrelated to our situation, because we know current CO2 increase cannot be similarly caused by increase in temperature, but by burning fossil fuels, due to above mentioned isotopic distribution. This fact singlehandedly invalidates all such discussions about the cause of the CO2 increase, since no non-fossil fuel source (such as the oceans during the end of the ige age) could cause such increase in carbon-12/carbon-13 ratio. Unless you want to deny nuclear science, its end of discussion about the origin of the CO2 increase.

So indeed, under specific conditions the relationship can be reversed, and temperature can cause increase in CO2. But we know for sure that this mechanism cannot be responsible now.



Radiation, as it pertains to climate, does not work without convection and conduction.


Unless this convection and conduction can shed the heat into space (which it cant), no global cooling occurs. Moving the heat inside atmosphere is not cooling. Please show how this convection and conduction should shed the heat into space, when space is empty.



This is not your original statement, and I hope others will call you out on it because now you are trying to back peddle to cover up your inadequate understanding of physics.


This is not my original statement? All I did was I simply joined my two original statements (which you said contradict each other) into one sentence. Suddenly they dont contradict each other? Its you who is trying to back peddle.

My original statements:
Temperature is a function of incoming and outgoing energy.
Temperature is indeed a measure of the kinetic energy of particles.

My statement you replied to:
Temperature (a measure of the kinetic energy of particles) is a function of incoming and outgoing energy.



What? That makes no sense... since when is the capacity of CO2 to retain heat not important? The rate at which CO2 irradiates thermal energy is most certainly important.




In the first graph, the bit taken out of the spectrum between about 600 and 750 cm-1 is a band where CO2 absorbs radiation.
In the second graph, the peak in the spectrum between about 600 and 750 cm-1 is a band of IR radiation from CO2 coming to the surface. The backradiation you claim does not exist, or is small.

The surface of the Earth actually receives in total more radiation from the atmosphere than it does direclty from the Sun.



Glass does not emulate gravity, and is no way analogous. Absolutely incorrect. Please show anything that says that glass and gravity are analogous, including in their ability to trap gas.


In the experiment, glass confines gas to the surface, in real world gravity confines atmosphere to the surface of the Earth. Exacly analogous. If you dont think so, point out why they are not similar, and why it should be relevant for the validity of the experiment.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 




Because you can't? If it's such a simple experiment, it should be easily verifiable with calculus.


Because simply the fact that the only two differences between the experiments are the presence of CO2 and increased temperature in the second cup proves that the presence of CO2 caused the increased temperature. Therefore greenhouse effect does not violate thermodynamics. If you think there is other explanation than greenhouse effect which can be the cause of the observed warming in one cup, bring it on.



Skepticalscience.com is not a peer-reviewed source for climate studies and does not represent the current theories put forth by the community.


Poisoning the well fallacy. Skepticalscience is well sourced under every article.
I have never claimed your sources are invalid because they are in the minority (only as a reaction, after you repeatedly and incorrectly used the opposite fallacy - argumentum ad populum).
Concentrate on the actual science.



The very first page of the thread was about CO2 lagging temperature, and you completely ignored it only to later put your graph up and say that all of the other supporting data in the last 4 years is wrong, including ice cores.


See above. Debunked by isotopic ratio of atmospheric CO2 and by the fact that even during the end of the ice age, 90% of the global warming still occurs after the CO2 increase (because of it). Unrelated to current GW.



All of your sources are from the same place, a known AGW proponent website, which again, is not peer-reviewed.


There is a peer-reviewed response:
www.worldscinet.com...



I have hundreds more that support it.


If we want to use argumentum ad populum fallacy, then I still win, since 95% of climate scientists agree that greenhouse effect is real.



My argument is not whether or not a specific carbon emission exists in the atmosphere. My argument is that just because it's there does not mean it is causation for warming. Correlation is not causation.


From the OP:


The Earth is definitely getting warmer, and there is an increase of CO2, supposedly as a result of the change, so what is fueling the warmth?


The increase in CO2 cannot be a result of the change in temperature, since we know its a result of fossil fuel emissions.


We know that orbital changes during the Milankovitch cycles will be simply insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age. Only 10% of the temperature increase comes directly from the orbital change, the rest comes from the increase in greenhouse effect when CO2 is released from the oceans.
icebubbles.ucsd.edu...

If CO2 cannot cause increase in temperature, where does this 90% of energy come from?



CO2 LAGS temperature... this means that global warming is not man-made because it was happening 400,000 years ago.


This is a logical fallacy. Just because something happened in the past naturally does not mean humans cannot cause it now artificially.

Nuclear reactors are not manmade, since they also were happening naturally 1,7 billion years ago?


edit on 20/4/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join