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: 4
27
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Extreme Weather,,,


EDIS Number: ST-20120420-34960-ISR
Event type: Extreme Weather
Date/Time: Friday, 20 April, 2012 at 14:43 (02:43 PM) UTC
Last update: ---
Cause of event: Sandstorm
Damage level: Minor Damage level
Geographic information
Continent: Middle-East
Country: Israel
County / State:
Area: Jordan Valley-wide
City:
Coordinate: N 31° 56.794, E 35° 18.163
----------------

The following !!

is my

OWN expressed OPINION,

on a
Extreme Weather,,event
in an Area of the World,
,that is very religious.

And they didn't see this comming?
lol,,,ya,,ok,,,


On September 21st, 4:00 pm
Chairman: Prof. Dr. N. El Bassam
Organizers: Club of Rome, TREC and IFEED
quote

"Like the APOLLO SPACE Program, which adopted, improved and bundled existing technologies of the 1960s to bring man into outer space, an APOLLO DESERT Program can with the present renewable energy technologies give us the ability to upgrade desert space into clean, everlasting and low-cost power and water sources and eventually bring mankind into balance with its home planet Earth."
unquote

guess they think GOD is some guy named APOLLO?

It's HIS playground,
,guess GOD, trumps,
Religion/Vanity/Science?

Me.




posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 




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).


I implied nothing of the sort, you did. I explicitly said that the energy is NOT constant. There is nothing pointless about the variables that go into an equation as large as a climate model, and that includes variations in the sun's output. The sun's output is not constant, you are wrong and because of your INSISTENCE on being right instead of doing honest research, this is why I discredit your claims. You are taking an AVERAGE of the sun's output which is completely different. Solar variance doesn't account for ALL heating, but it does account for part of it, and most of the heating of the planet is due to the radiation from the sun. The changes in solar output are already incorporated into the existing climate models, and it varies by about .1% per cycle.

You are clearly uninformed and do not have factual information to work with....


The ACRIMSAT spacecraft carrying the ACRIM III instrument will measure the sun's total energy output, continuing the database started in 1980 by ACRIM I on the Solar Maximum Mission (SMM). ACRIM I was the first instrument to clearly show that the energy from the sun is not a constant value but instead varies over time. These energy changes are small but significant and they cycle approximately every 11 years. ACRIMSAT is the third ACRIM mission to measure Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) and this vital data set will help climate scientists build more accurate climate models.


NASA's EDUCATION Page



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).


To this day, there is no proof or agreed theory about what causes an ice age, so you have no basis for your statement other than speculation.

According to you, CO2 does in fact rise after temperature, because you just said it above ("CO2 indeed lags temperature in the beginning"), but only happens after an ice age and no other time, and is only caused by a change in the Earth's tilt?

The bolded sentence is a complete farce to go perfectly with your unproven theory on ice age causation, so I doubt you have any evidence to support this when some of the only evidence that exists is ice cores, and I've clearly shown you to be wrong on page 1. I'll agree that warming causes the oceans to release more CO2, but you are wrong about the amplification because as I've shown, and so have the many ice core studies and papers I referenced a few posts back, the temperature comes first, then the CO2. If positive feedback had occurred 400,000 years ago, or at any other point in time, the loop wouldn't stop based on your imaginings; it would lead to a runaway effect, and that has never happened and won't because of the laws of thermodynamics that you so conveniently ignore. The Earth's climate, just like everything else in nature, finds equilibrium.

By the nature of your claim, the orbit will change again, and temperatures will drop and lower CO2, but there is ZERO evidence of this anywhere in the climate record.

First, the AGW proponents clung to ice cores... until under scrutiny, it showed that CO2 lagged behind temperature. I've shown that, in both undisputed papers that have long since been peer-reviewed and graphs of the ORIGINAL Vostok ice core RAW data. I even provided you a link to it so you could graph it on your own, but you choose to ignore facts and throw baseless data into the discussion that has been irrefutably proven wrong.

You have argued that global warming is caused by CO2, and then agree that the warming is caused by "something else", whether it be "changes in the Earth's orbit", or any other number of variables, the point still remains that the warming comes first and the rise in CO2 is an effect. This difference isn't small, it's a lag of approximately 800-1500 years. This eliminates the theory of CO2 being the cause of the warming and forces science to look at a different explanation.

(continued below)

edit on 23-4-2012 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


The warming of the oceans has also been argued because while they release CO2, they release far more water vapor, and the water vapor creates clouds, and clouds produce shade while reflecting solar radiation (higher albedo) and increase conduction and convection, and therefore change the surface temperature. You are not considering the whole system, as usual, just a single gas, and not even bothering to understand the physics of it. If you leave your car parked on a hot day, and get in with the windows closed, you have yourself a greenhouse effect. Once you open the windows to the car, you don't even have to be driving (to do "work") and it still changes the dynamics of the climate of the inside of the car because of the 2nd law (heat leaving the hotter car to the cooler atmosphere), conduction (the physical exchange of particles from the heated particles transferring their energy to other gases in the air) and convection (the indifferences between conductive gradients of air) and is no longer considered a greenhouse effect at that point. This is the misunderstanding you and many others have about what a greenhouse effect is compared to an atmosphere.

The single biggest flaw in this argument of yours is that you are confusing energy and heat where the second law of thermodynamics is concerned, which is the most common mistake that AGW proponents make. You don't seem to understand the difference between them and why radiation coming from the atmosphere can't possibly warm the surface of the Earth. Radiation has to be ABSORBED in order to cause an increase in energy necessary to excite the particles, which is the measurement of HEAT, and then emit the energy to return to equilibrium. Everything in physics must obey the 2nd law, and therefore, a warmer body can not accept energy from a cooler body because the energy would be ignored by scattering or resonance. The surface of the planet is already in a heightened energy state from the radiation of the sun and will not accept incoming energy unless it is enough to INCREASE it's internal energy state, which has to be more powerful than the sun to do. Thus, the energy will not be absorbed, it will be scattered and reflected until it follows the second law by having interaction with a lower energy particle or body. These lower energy particles are FAR less available on the surface of the planet when being bombarded by the much higher energy particles from the sun, and have already risen to a state where they will not absorb additional energy. This is WHY the second law is obeyed and why the claim that the cooler atmosphere can not warm the surface of the Earth without doing some type of "work" to lower the energy state of those particles is true and in lock-step with physics. It also shows how it would be a violation of the second law to support AGW.



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.


This wasn't even part of your argument until someone else mentioned it, and has nothing to do with the discussion since we aren't talking about why CO2 is increasing, we're talking about why the greenhouse gas theory (as is applies to atmospheric physics) and therefore, man-made global warming theory, are false. There has been no discussion and no argument from me in this thread about whether or not humans are putting more CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere via pollution, so your point has nothing to do with this and I never said that CO2 wasn't increasing.

The discussion is whether or not ANY CO2, man-made or not, is the cause of the warming of the Earth's surface. As I've said before, correlation is not causation, and as I've shown with the 400,000 years of Vostok core data, which no climate scientists has dared dispute, the CO2 rises AFTER temperature. This is simple cause and effect and you can't prove otherwise. Nobody has invalidated the Vostok data because it's the only long-term reliable source of climate data that is available.

(continued below)
edit on 23-4-2012 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-4-2012 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-4-2012 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-4-2012 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Here are your own words just to show others how you are trying to strawman and manipulate the thread:



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.


Oops... I guess you meant:



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.


Hmmm... So warming is initiated by changes in the Earth's obit (Milankovitch cycles) to take us out of an ice age, but those changes aren't at all attributed to the Milankovitch cycles?
Riiiight...



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...


There is not a single source anywhere that you can reference that says only 10% of the temperature increase comes from orbital change, please show a source for that statement.

And did you even bother to read the paper you sourced???


Page 1730:


Combining this uncertainty with the uncertainty introduced by ice accumulation (800 x 0.2, i.e., 160 years), we obtain an overall uncertainty of 200 years, indicating that the increase in CO2 lags Antarctic warming by 800 +-200 years, which we must consider a mean phase lag because of the method we used to make the correlation. We cannot think of a mechanism that would make 40 Ar lead the temperature change, although a lag is possible if the temperature or accumulation change affects the nondiffusive zone (27). This result is in accordance with recent studies (9, 30) but, owing to our new method, more precise. This confirms that CO2 is not the forcing that initially drives the climatic system during a deglaciation. Rather, deglaciation is probably initiated by some insolation forcing (1, 31, 32), which influences first the temperature change in Antarctica (and possibly in part of the Southern Hemisphere) and then the CO2.


That's YOUR paper that you cited, not mine, and it fully supports exactly what I said since page 1, which is that CO2 lags temperature. They leave it open-ended, as to say "we don't know" by stating in the paper "is probably... by some insolation forcing...and then... and then..."

I find it funny that not only are you not reading the papers I've sourced, you aren't reading your own.



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


Sounds like you're finally asking the right question and this is what I've been hoping for... it isn't CO2, we know that now. CO2 does not increase energy, only an increase in energy can cause an increase in energy. Temperatures are a result of excited particles and higher energy states. Energy can be a photon or electromagnetic radiation. You can have lots of radiation or light and never have an increase in temperature. I can shine a flashlight into a cup of hot water for years, and if the hot water temperature remains constant, the energy from the flashlight will NEVER induce an increase in temperature without a REACTION, which requires a specific wavelength to increase the internal state of the atoms. I hope this makes it clearer to you.

It's also been well-established (and not debated) that CO2 at higher pressures, such as those found in the atmosphere, will cool, not heat, the surrounding gas. Another peer-reviewed paper that changes the dynamics of the discussion are around CO2. The total emissivity of CO2 at atmospheric pressures is reduced, therefore, has a cooling effect, not a warming one.


the total emissivity of carbon dioxide is inversely proportional to its effective pressure and, consequently, to its density in the atmosphere. The same effect has been verified on the tables of total emissivity of carbon dioxide obtained by Hottel, Leckner and other contemporary scientists (1)(2)(3)(4). This fact confirms that carbon dioxide operates as a coolant of the atmosphere and the surface,
not as a warmer of the mentioned systems.
...
...
Carbon dioxide emitted by human activity cannot be the cause of climate change as it is incapable physically of causing a significant anomaly of the atmospheric temperature. Any assertion—involving the physics of radiative heat transfer—that carbon dioxide is a causative agent of climate change, is a deliberate pseudoscientific misrepresentation.


Source

There are a lot of things that can contribute to the increase in energy, even though it isn't 90%. The changes between glacial and interglacial temperatures based on the Vostok cores is about 10C, which is quite high, and we still today are 3C below the maximum over the 450,000 years in the cores, which is why I strongly argue your 90% calculation, because it is not supported by direct evidence. Source

(continued below)
edit on 23-4-2012 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-4-2012 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Finding out what is increasing the temperatures is still at the heart of the debate, but has advanced far beyond CO2 and AGW.


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?


This is a complete strawman argument. You can't draw that kind of comparison. This is a classic argument used by global warming alarmists.

It shows a pattern that repeats over a 400,000+ year period, not just one or two times, but several. Humans are not the cause of the warming, and neither is CO2.


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


I love how you take facts and twist them. The 31,000 I mentioned before are the ones from all disciplines, not just climate science, that have reason to believe that the data is being misrepresented, regardless of their expertise in the field and you have absolutely no proof of it being a fraud just because you don't approve of people's credentials.. Climate science is still a fairly new "field" and is made of almost all disciplines of the science spectrum. You can try and claim that a medical doctor does not have any place in that list, but I guarantee you that there are medical doctors that have a far deeper understanding of chemistry and physics than you do.

Your reference to skepticalscience over and over again is a reflection of your inability to support your arguments, and the funny thing about sites like that, is that they also do a poor job of due diligence quite often and circulate each other's contents.

From your source:


A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject "global climate change" published between 1993-2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused.


Science is not consensus as I've already explained, that is a political term, not a scientific one. The convenient part you left out of your 95% statement is that the survey was conducted at a time (1993-2003) when the ONLY reports and information on AGW were mostly from the IPCC and Al Gore's group of "scientists". It wasn't until REAL science took over and started picking apart the claims of politicians and junk scientists that ClimateGate occurred, that Congressional hearings occurred calling into question the scientists that perpetrated falsified data, and that thousands of scientists from around the world started tearing apart the man-made myth.

The other convenient fact you left out of your source is that the survey in question was of 3,146 earth scientists, not climate scientists, because climate science involves several disciplines, not just earth scientists, which is a very broad category. The 95% that you think you "still win" with, are the surveyed people from 1993-2003 that had published papers, which means by proxy, they are the same group of scientists that were proponents of man-made global warming, and your source cites nothing about any other scientists outside of the 3,146 that were surveyed, and ONLY the ones who published papers during that period. Again, how convenient of you to leave out those facts since there has been hundreds of published papers that clearly contradict and disprove the greenhouse gas theory.

You also left out that the only way anyone was considered to have any expertise in climate science during that survey, is if they had a published paper. That is intentional exclusion of facts and is highly misleading and you are further propagating such misinformation here.

This completely invalidates your claim based on your own source because you are quick to jump on any link that has ANYTHING that agrees with your theory, even when it's a biased source. You have a propensity for taking things out of context to fit your paradigm.

Let's take what you stated:


The 30,000 scientists and science graduates listed on the OISM petition represent a tiny fraction (0.3%) of all science graduates.


So if my 30,000 is against your 3,146, how do you "still win"? By your own logic for "winning", YOU actually lose. Your fraction of scientists that are part of the "consensus" is .03%, which is almost ten times fewer than the 31,000+ on the petition, which again, means you're wrong and your argument is invalid. I really love how you address the 31,000 scientists but not the 750+ peer-reviewed papers.


(continued below)
edit on 23-4-2012 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-4-2012 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-4-2012 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


I keep trying to tell you that your information is very outdated and no longer valid in light of new information and studies. You choose to ignore that, so be it, I can't stop you from being ignorant, but I'm certainly not going to let you mislead others who read this thread.

To your point and mine from page 1, the greenhouse effect is real, but it doesn't apply to the Earth's atmosphere, only to greenhouses on the ground. If you want to call it the atmospheric greenhouse effect, fine, but it is not the same greenhouse effect you have with a glass container or real greenhouse.

Glass is a solid, not a gas, and does not represent the way gas is held in place by gravity, pressure or electromagnetism in the same way our atmosphere is. Your analogy to this was way off-base. A solid will not allow any gas to escape out of the container, or any dissipation of the gas, whereas the atmosphere will. The way heat is irradiated and energy transferred is vastly different, especially considering the numerous additional variables in climate models compared to a glass container experiment. The effect on a glass container is far simpler to understand than a planet's climate and you can't keep ignoring the other parts of the equation. While there may be some similarities between the two, you just can not simplify the Earth's climate down to a glass box.

The Earth generates a magnetic field and has several layers of atmosphere. A glass box does not. The Earth rotates, tilts and wobbles, a glass box does not. Gravity does not "prevent the hottest molecules from escaping" as you said, it is actually the opposite. Gravity is a weak force and acts on mass, pulling gases with more MASS closer to the surface, including CO2 because it is more dense. As gas gets hotter, it LOSES MASS! Therefore, the gas becomes less dense and rises as gravity has less of an effect and convection takes hold. This is one of the principle understandings of convection. You can boil a pot of water on a stove and see the effect of gravity on gas as the steam RISES due to the transfer of heat from the hotter water to the cooler air, and the resulting convection due to temperature differences in the heating, just as is seen in thermodynamics.

Going on "Maslo's Law Of Thermodynamics" and the GHG proponents, if I leave a cup of hot water in a cool room, the cup will get hotter by pulling the heat out of the atmosphere, or the cooler air will "radiate" it's lost energy (heat) to heat the cup of hot water to make it hotter. This is why "back-radiation" has been proven to be a complete violation of thermodynamics and the inside joke of physicists world-wide.


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


Same exact paper as the one you referenced here:


Here is a peer-reviewed response to your source:
COMMENT ON "FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS"


This is the same exact response you provided earlier, just a different link to a different source. It is the rebuttal from a whopping 5 scientists to the paper that was peer-reviewed by over 130 before being accepted in the journal, and hundreds, probably thousands more scientists after it was published, agreed with it because the "qualitative" math and experimental evidence is clear. As I mentioned already, it takes far less to get a rebuttal published than the entry into the journal.


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.


You clearly have no clue what you're talking about, and didn't say anything about this until someone else presented it... how do you debunk ice cores that show CO2 lagging temperature by almost 1000 years with a minuscule increase in carbon-13? According to the AGW gods, aka the IPCC (Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, (Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press, 2001), Figure 3.1, p. 188.):



Carbon Dioxide Source: Annual Million Metric Tons / % of Total
- Natural: 770,000 / 97.1%
- Human Made: 23,100 / 2.9%
- Total: 793,100 / 100%
- Absorption: 781,400 / 98.5%


The amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is approximately .03% for ALL sources, and of that, 2.9% is man-made. If you do the math on that, it is .0087. There is no way you are going to convince anyone on this planet, that .0087% of the atmosphere is going to change the temperature, again, the physics are ridiculously simple to understand that. Incorporate a total emissivity at 1 atm (atmospheric pressure) of .0016 at 374K and you have your answer that it is physically impossible for that amount of CO2 at that amount of emissivity to effect the surface temperature in any measurable way.

(continued below)
edit on 23-4-2012 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Now, please show your proof to the contrary that 90% of the warming happens after the CO2 and sources that show the carbon-13 distribution as the direct cause of the said warming. (good luck on this one)


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.


This is funny... I ask you to prove it and you give this for an answer and ask me to prove it instead? Wow... awesome debate skills.

I've already explained why they are different. The burden of proof is on you, as I called you out on it, and gave my explanation of why they were different from the aspect of physical laws. I'd love to see how you demonstrate convection and conduction in your glass containers.


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.


This is ridiculous and really shows how little you understand here... I can't even believe you would actually type this?! Almost ALL of the radiation comes directly from the sun. When the sun is out, it's hot, when it's night time, it's cooler.... this is basic physics 101. Energy coming from the sun in the form of radiation warms the planet when it is absorbed and re-emitted by matter, such as on the surface, as I've already mentioned and described at length. When you stand in the sun and feel the heat on your skin, that's the radiation interacting with your skin FROM THE SUN, not from anywhere else, which is why when you stand outside at night, you don't feel the same thing. So simple, most children understand this. You are arguing it to sound like you know what you're talking about, when you clearly don't.

Your references are also old and outdated, which is what you get for getting them from web sites and blogs instead of peer-reviewed papers that you actually bother to read... The back radiation I claim isn't there came from the mouth of one of the leading PROPONENTS of AGW, Judith Curry in August of 2011:


"Back radiation is a phrase, one that I don’t use myself, and it is not a word that is used in technical radiative transfer studies. Lets lose the back radiation terminology, we all agree on that."


And from Professor Claes Johnson, also in response to her comment:


This is a stunning revelation, because CO2 alarmism is based on massive back radiation as the carrier of the greenhouse effect. If back radiation is a phrase, so is CO2 global warming. A phrase, not science. The difference is huge.



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.


If you understand the basics of climate science, I would not need to show you anything, you would know it already.

Simply put, conduction and convection lift the hotter air up to the atmosphere (2nd law) so that it can be carried out by the different layers of the atmosphere and irradiated into space. This is mostly done by convection. The movement of heat inside the atmosphere is advection. Just like the law of thermodynamics says, as the hot air expands, it will become less dense and therefore less buoyant, and will rise. These are pretty basic concepts that allude to how far behind you are in this discussion.

(continued below)
edit on 23-4-2012 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-4-2012 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Because you are so far removed from the science and refuse to learn in order to fill in the gaps, you aren't aware of the studies that are destroying your arguments. For example, recently, Dr. Nasif Nahle, a highly recognized scientist involved in the debate, published the following: (with peer-review, sourced already in previous post)


Carbon dioxide does not contribute appreciably with the greenhouse effect. The contribution of carbon dioxide to the current anomaly of temperature at its current concentration in the atmosphere is really insignificant.

The failure of carbon dioxide for causing a large change of temperature in the atmosphere obeys to its intrinsic physical properties, not to negative feedbacks triggered by other more efficient greenhouse gases in the air than carbon dioxide, i.e. water vapor, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and carbon monoxide.

The calculations on this investigation show that the total emissivity of carbon dioxide decreases as the density of the gas in the atmosphere increases, so we should expect that at higher concentrations in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide could act as a coolant of the atmosphere and the surface of the Earth as long 14 as the energy emitted by the surface does not increase. If the latter happens, the total emissivity of carbon dioxide would increase, so its contribution to the greenhouse effect would increase.

The inversely proportional correlation between the total emissivity of carbon dioxide and its density in the atmosphere may obey to an increase of more available microstates toward which the energy emitted by the surface and other internal systems in the atmosphere is transferred by radiation.

Carbon dioxide emitted by human activity cannot be the cause of climate change as it is incapable physically of causing a significant anomaly of the atmospheric temperature. Any assertion—involving the physics of radiative heat transfer—that carbon dioxide is a causative agent of climate change, is a deliberate pseudoscientific misrepresentation.


Here is a link to his credentials if you'd like to argue with him about the cooling effect of CO2. Source

And the source of the above mentioned paper in full: Source

So far in this thread, you started your argument with trying to re-define the second law of thermodynamics by using an argument that was dismissed early last year in light of new experiments, all of which I have sourced in my posts. When I pointed out your misunderstanding of energy and heat and how they apply to the second law, where radiation is not absorbed because of an already increased energy state resulting from the sun's radiation, you reply with a published rebuttal to the paper I sourced, which was only accepted by 5 scientists, compared to the original paper accepted by over 130, still failing to understand the difference between energy and heat.

Then your argument changed to the slowing down of released energy and called that an increase in temperature, which I again demonstrated with physics and well-sourced peer-reviewed papers that you are still wrong with your understanding of the difference between energy and heat, both of which obey the second law of thermodynamics.

Then your argument changed to disputing the validity of the second law as it applies to radiation, which is just nonsensical, by saying that radiation somehow bypasses the second law and increases temperature in a warmer body of air at the surface after traveling from a cooler body at the atmosphere.

Then you tried to dispute the importance and inclusion of convection and conduction in regard to the role they have in the supposed "greenhouse effect", contradicting every known climate model on the planet. You provide graphs that are unsourced as your evidence, references to known AGW proponent sites (not papers), and links to experiments that were not representative of the rigors that real scientific experiments endure to pass scrutiny by peers. I provided dozens of peer-reviewed papers, qualitative measurements, math, examples of physical experiments and very deep explanations of the information that has come forth over the last few years. When I start asking you for proof, you change the argument to positive feedback and isotopic distribution which have nothing to do with the original post of why the greenhouse effect does not apply to the climate of the planet.

(continued below)
edit on 23-4-2012 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-4-2012 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-4-2012 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


You purposely choose to ignore facts that directly impact the evaluation of climate such as convection, conduction, emissivity, absorptivity, humidity, cosmic radiation, solar variance, satellite data, physical experiments with verifiable and reproducible results, when all of these are used in climate models and are STILL inaccurate, yet get us closer to a better understanding of climate. I ask you for experimental evidence supported by physical math and you refuse to produce it claiming that it isn't necessary. You contradict yourself multiple times and use the same arguments over and over again without any in-depth explanation of your reasoning for them. You then manipulate data and paraphrase sources to fit your argument, yet when digging in to those sources for their context that you sourced, they clearly contradict your arguments.

With all of the effort I've put in to explain things to you, and all of the material I've provided, it is insulting for you to continue to use the same baseless arguments with little to no supporting evidence. I'm happy to bring a better understanding of things forward and absolutely believe that everything should be questioned.... to a point. There is a big difference between being persistently inquisitive, and arrogant. Just like there is a difference between believing you know something that you don't (ignorance) and being open to learning something you might not know.

You definitely "get" more than the average person, but you are not open to the idea of being wrong.

Please stop adding things to the thread that are no longer supported and start providing evidence that is current to the discussion, otherwise you are spreading misinformation, and I, nor anyone on this forum who wants facts and unbiased information is seeking your opinion, or that of anyone else's. We can discuss opinions on theories supported by evidence, not based on personal assumptions and speculation with no base in physics.

If all science was based on your logic, we could very well still be in the dark ages.

~Namaste
edit on 23-4-2012 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Interesting topic. I too have read "Slaying The Sky Dragon" and found it very informative. Your post is an intellectual tour-de force and clearly well-researched. I'm still in two-minds whether atmospheric CO2 back-radiation can cause an increase in the global mean surface temperature. The concept of "back-radiation" is definitively real, as all gases re-radiate their energy in all directions equally, and so it therefore seems inevitable to me that some of that radiation will make it make down to the surface. But as for the question, will this radiation cause warming of the surface, intuitively, I would think probably not. It's like trying to heat up hot water in a saucepan by pouring in cooler water. You aren't going to increase the overall mean temperature of the saucepan because the energy is less and the molecules are not being excited to a higher energy-state. I've written some articles on CAGW called "The Cold Truth About CO2", "The Revelle Factor vs. Henry's law", "The validity of paleo-climate ice-core data", and "Atmospheric CO2 short residence time", and others. It turns out that if we accept the IPCC's own figures in AR4 2007 (and apply Henry's law, which is a universally accepted law of nature) anthropogenic global warming is currently proceeding at the rate of 0.001C/year.



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.

This isn't true. CO2 (natural or human) cannot accumulate in the atmosphere for more than 3.8 years. See my explanation here: chipstero7.blogspot.co.uk...



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
carbon carbon carbon carbon

what about methane ? what about landfills ? what about deforestation ? what about all the blacktop and black roofs ? what about all the reflective surfaces ?

it's not just carbon


c'mon man



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
carbon carbon carbon carbon

what about methane ? what about landfills ? what about deforestation ? what about all the blacktop and black roofs ? what about all the reflective surfaces ?

it's not just carbon


c'mon man


I agree with you 10000%. I'm glad others are coming forth with their views and skepticism because I would hate to see us all go down the path of carbon taxes and new "preventative" laws.

Thank you for the feedback.


~Namaste



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Nathan-D
 


Your analogy was perfect!

I will look over your link because I had a difficult time finding data on the distribution of carbon-13 and it's sources.

What I was able to find, pointed to organic decay, so maybe the increase in carbon-13 is from something else of an organic nature that has not been identified yet.

Your link may go into more detail, so I may be speaking too soon, but I am definitely going to be reading more about it.

I have LOTS of sources that I plan to provide references to, I just haven't had the chance to because I've been busy trying to fight fiction with fact.


Thank you for the input... very glad to see others contributing. I think it's time to raise serious awareness about this because the media and typical delivery channels are not.

~Namaste



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Nathan-D
 


I read your post and found it to be an excellent, well-written understanding on carbon-13. I'm thankful for your contribution.

I don't disagree about the radiation from the atmosphere, my main argument has been whether or not that radiation could impact the surface temps and how the strict nature of temperature changes from colder to hotter would violate the second law.

You raise the same point that I have attempted to deconstruct and I believe, I have enough evidence to support, that the atmosphere-to-surface radiant thermal effect (aka - back radiation) would also be a violation due to radiation having to follow the same law of thermodynamics. If the energy of the particles of mass that make up the surface of the Earth, including the heavier gas that is found closer to the surface, has its internal energy state increased as a result of the radiation from the sun, those particles will not be impacted by the minimal amount of radiation from the atmosphere due to the constant bombardment from the sun. The thermal conductivity of the CO2 in the atmosphere would not move from the atmosphere to the surface, which is why G&T represent that position in their controversial papers. The radiation must obey the same law in an energetic state. If thermal radiation represents the amount of excitation in the particle, due to it's internal energy state being raised, it would only be logical to deduce that any radiation of a frequency lower than that of the excited state would not add additional energy, and therefore not be absorbed, so it would be scattered or reflected until that lower energy photon finds a particle in a lower energy state. That particle in a lower state, with the constant bombardment from the sun, is likely going to be very rare, it at all. If this was not true, it would be easy to show that the second law is false, which nobody has ever been able to do. (for good reason)

Add to this, the minuscule amount of CO2, it's distribution, it's mass, and it's absorptivity and emissivity, I don't see how it would be possible to have any measurable change in temperature. Even with an increase in the CO2, it would take an enormous increase to show the change in temperature. With your evidence showing the life of carbon being less than 4 years, I'm not sure that we could add enough CO2 to the atmosphere over a 4 year period to cause a measurable change. I believe there are a lot more pieces of the puzzle, some of which are just now coming to light, others still waiting to be discovered, without even touching on the larger aspects.

The planet shows incredible resilience adjusting to temperature, and if you were to greatly simplify things, everything in nature respects equilibrium, including the Earth, which likely gets a majority of it from the oceans. It's possible that the atmosphere is just an equilibrium mechanism for adjusting the balance between the Earth and everything else. I know I'm way over-simplifying, but it is very effective at "correcting", even if it does so on much larger time-scales, it always seems to do it.

The bottom line for me is that I don't believe the science of climate change has been well-represented, or well-established as a new field of study due to "too many BAD cooks in the kitchen". It's bad enough to have so many people jumping in to the debate, such as politicians who don't have scientific backgrounds, but even worse when scientists who should know better than to take something at face value, spread useless junk science, and even worse than that, when they use the internet as a vehicle. If I have a misunderstanding about something, I would hope to be corrected with evidence and strong debate, not regurgitated garbage from the IPCC or other politically affiliated bodies. I'm happy to see real science coming to the rescue, I just hope it isn't too late to fix the grave misunderstandings that have already been implanted into people's minds.

Again, thank you for the link to the blog. I will be referencing it in the future as a good source on carbon-13.
I'm also interested in your other posts and discussing things further.

~Namaste
edit on 24-4-2012 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-4-2012 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   
I just read this whole thread, and I have to say your research and the majority of your conclusions are impeccable. I really and truly wish the current scientific hierarchy were more receptive to common sense and observational input rather than mathematical models. I'd still be doing scientific research today if it wasn't for the political climate of the sciences, especially atmospheric science. I became so frustrated I just moved on.



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 





This term has been so completely skewed and abused, that it was probably the starting point for the misunderstanding about climate change. A greenhouse is a closed system. It is an enclosed glass structure that allows the radiation from light, to pass through the glass and allows the resulting heat to be trapped. It's a closed system because there is nowhere for the heat to go. The Earth is an open system. It has no glass ceiling that traps heat, and you can not compare a gas like CO2 to a solid like glass. Greenhouses are usually limited in size. The Earth has an entire solar system to radiate heat out. The Earth is therefore NOT a greenhouse, and so to apply the greenhouse effect, as it's used to describe global warming, is ridiculous and would violate all of the known laws of physics.


Your definition of a greenhouse is incorrect. How can you consider a greenhouse a closed system when you admit that it allows radiation in through it. Not only does it let radiation in. It also lets some radiation back out.
Evidently by your own claim it cannot be a closed system.

The earth is not a closed system. No one has ever said it was. In terms of reductionist science it can be useful to look at it as a closed system. Earth Sciences range from reductionist to holistic in nature.

The comparison that is made between CO2 and glass is not categorical it is simply there to help people understand how greenhouse gasses work. and just for you information glass is not a solid..



Yes there is a basic understanding on how C02 interacts with heat..


Incoming solar radiation is widely distributed across the electromagnetic spectrum. Some wavelengths (mostly visible light) get through the atmosphere to the surface, some don't. Of the radiation that gets through, some is reflected and some is absorbed by the surface of the earth. The reflected radiation is not an issue, because it goes right back into space at the same wavelengths that it came in at, unimpeded, just like on the way in. It is only the absorbed radiation that is a problem.


This radiation is later re-emitted, but in the form of Infrared Radiation (IR). Certain atmospheric gases, known as "greenhouse gases", absorb IR, then re-emit it back into the atmosphere. Some percentage of this re-emitted IR (after a long sequence of re-absorptions and re-emissions by other greenhouse gas molecules) eventually works its way back down to the lower atmosphere and is said to "warm" the surface.


wiki.answers.com...

At the end of that paragraph I stopped reading. If you want to negate AGW adleast supply some information that makes sense..



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer

The comparison that is made between CO2 and glass is not categorical it is simply there to help people understand how greenhouse gasses work. and just for you information glass is not a solid..



Glass is indeed a solid at temperatures of 1,200 deg F and below:


Glass is an amorphous (non-crystalline) solid material that exhibits a glass transition, which is the reversible transition in amorphous materials (or in amorphous regions within semicrystalline materials) from a hard and relatively brittle state into a molten or rubber-like state. Glasses are typically brittle and can be optically transparent. The most familiar type of glass, used for centuries in windows and drinking vessels, is soda-lime glass, composed of about 75% silica (SiO2) plus sodium oxide (Na2O) from soda ash, lime (CaO), and several minor additives. Often, the term glass is used in a restricted sense to refer to this specific use.

edit on 17-6-2013 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Thank you I stand corrected. Could you please now answer the points I raised in my first post...



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Thank you I stand corrected. Could you please now answer the points I raised in my first post...


The only thing I will add is:

As far as Climate Change, Humans and Earth are concerned: we have a LOT to learn. Anyone that says that they have it all figured out one way or another with this very complex and chaotic system is kidding themselves.

Taking a stance and saying that it MUST be THIS (whatever "this" is), is foolish, premature, and is not helping in trying to understand complex engines like climate.



posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   
you asked if anyone still believed in AGW and i will answer yes to that. i believe in it and i always will. i won't argue the point though. there's really no reason to because over the last 2 years of being on this site i've never once seen one side concede to the other so no matter what information is presented you won't go "oh, maybe you're right" and same goes for you. no matter how much scientific information you put in this thread the other side still seems more "logical" to me. arguing the point seems like a waste of time. you did present a lot of interesting information though.

just don't tell me i'm stupid to believe AGW and that it's just al gore trying to get rich because the corporations getting rich on the other end of AGW denial is a much stronger argument considering the gazillions of dollars involved there.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join