It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Arctic Ice Melt "has the momentum of a runaway train."

page: 21
<< 18  19  20   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 09:39 PM
reply to post by TheRedneck

But when you try to ignore the speed at which CO2 re-emits energy in order to try and change the subject to kinetic energy instead of radiation energy
I am not ignoring the re-emission of energy but you seem to want to ignore its re-absorbtion by other CO2 (and other GHG)molecules. You also want to ignore the transfer of kinetic energy (conduction) to non-GHGs molecules.

when you pick and choose relevance based not on numbers but on which is beneficial to your argument...
When you will not answer a question which is highly relevant to your position...

You want to discount conduction of heat from molecule to molecule. If you do that you have to explain how the atmosphere is heated by sunlight when it is composed mostly of N2 which has a very narrow absorption band centered at about 4.5 microns.

If conduction is a negligible effect, how is the nitrogen heated? Is it heated by infrared absorption? Didn't you say that an absorption wavelength of 4.3 microns can only result in heating if the temperature is about 450º? What heats the nitrogen (and oxygen) in the Earth's atmosphere if that is the case?

well, thank you for the debate.
You're welcome.

edit on 6/25/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 12:35 AM
reply to post by TheRedneck

Let's leave conductive heating out of it and just talk about CO2. Let's look at what you said about re-emission

The heat is radiated back into space. If a 15 um wavelength of that heat meets up with a molecule of CO2 (or water vapor) it will be absorbed and re-emitted in a random direction. That's a 50% probability that it will return to earth (assuming a low enough altitude for the planet to be considered a plane... just to take care of any nit-pickers) and add to the heat received.

A coin toss. Let's go with that.

Let's say we don't have any coins. No CO2 in the atmosphere. Outgoing radiation just keeps on going out. 100% of it. Earth's atmosphere is very cold.
Now let's add one "coin" worth of CO2. What happens? 50% chance that you'll get a tail. Earth gets warmer because the amount of radiation leaving is no longer the same as the amount of radiation incoming. Half of it is coming back to the surface.
Now let's add another "coin". What happens? With 2 coins the odds are 75% that you'll get at least one tail. Earth gets warmer still.
With 3 coins the odds are 87% that you'll get a tail. Earth gets warmer still.

The more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the more radiation will be re-emitted downward. But, you say, more will also be re-emitted upward. But more cannot be re-emitted upward. To understand why, go back to the no coin situation. The amount of escaping radiation cannot increase beyond 100% but the amount of returning radiation can increase from 0% and does. When 100% of the energy escapes, its cold. When 90% escapes it's a bit warmer. When 75% escapes it's warmer still. When the balance (where ever it may be) changes, the temperature of the Earth changes. Increasing GHGs is one thing that changes the balance.

edit on 6/26/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 05:25 PM
reply to post by Phage

Looks like neither of us are going to get responses.
I like challenging debate.

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 05:41 PM
reply to post by Phage

Just curious at the response on reabsorption of the gases. Are you suggesting it may not be as bad as some predict? Because that would be good, yet would it not lend to other problems?

Here are a few links:

Alot of graphs and links and don't feel like quoting from it.

“Earlier we found torch-like structures like this but they were only tens of metres in diameter. This is the first time that we’ve found continuous, powerful and impressive seeping structures, more than 1,000 metres in diameter. It’s amazing,” Dr Semiletov said. “I was most impressed by the sheer scale and high density of the plumes. Over a relatively small area we found more than 100, but over a wider area there should be thousands of them.”

Scientists estimate that there are hundreds of millions of tonnes of methane gas locked away beneath the Arctic permafrost, which extends from the mainland into the seabed of the relatively shallow sea of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. One of the greatest fears is that with the disappearance of the Arctic sea-ice in summer, and rapidly rising temperatures across the entire region, which are already melting the Siberian permafrost, the trapped methane could be suddenly released into the atmosphere leading to rapid and severe climate change.

Dr Semiletov’s team published a study in 2010 estimating that the methane emissions from this region were about eight million tonnes a year, but the latest expedition suggests this is a significant underestimate of the phenomenon.

This is the event that to me would mean, we all go home! And there is some concern that a sudden melt of all the ice all at once, and its predicted by this years end as a possibility, means the sudden release of countless millions of tons of methane.

Anyway, if you're downplaying this, would like to know what you're suggesting.

In the metaphysical outlook, I don't believe in this world being "real" to begin with, however, that being said, the methane situation is very alarming, because its a real event, unlike Nibiru, unless that is nibiru, since no one really give an explanation as to what nibiru is. Maybe its the methane that is nicknamed "wormwood".....I always thought it was radiation.
edit on 26-6-2013 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:10 PM
reply to post by Unity_99

Just curious at the response on reabsorption of the gases. Are you suggesting it may not be as bad as some predict? Because that would be good, yet would it not lend to other problems?
I am talking about absorption of energy, not gasses.
I am not downplaying the effects of greenhouse gasses.

The fate of calthrate deposits in the Arctic is unclear but there is little doubt that with increasing temperatures methane will continue to be released. Currently the amount being released is slight in comparison to the global level. To understand if the Artic releases will accelerate, and if so to what extent, will require more study. Little is known about it.
edit on 6/26/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 29 2013 @ 04:52 PM
reply to post by Phage

Thanks for your contributions.

Continuing to study the issue, IMO, is imperative at this point.

Last July, a record melting occurred on the Greenland ice sheet. Even in some of the highest and coldest areas, field parties observed rainfall with air temperatures several degrees above the freezing point. A month before, it was as though Greenland expert Jason Box had a crystal ball; he predicted this complete surface melting in a scientific publication. Box's research then got broader public visibility after climate activist and writer Bill McKibben covered it in Rolling Stone magazine.
The basic premise of Box's study was that observations reveal a progressive darkening of Greenland ice. Darkening causes the white snow surface to absorb more sunlight which in turn increases melting. Given that this process is likely to continue, the impact on Greenland melt, and subsequent sea level rise, will be profound.
Arctic sea ice, another key measure of global heating, is now 60 years ahead of worst-case projections from the last report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007. Arctic snow cover on land has also been declining more rapidly than projected, even faster than sea ice. While mass loss of the enormous Greenland sheet is difficult to measure, satellite data indicate it has doubled in the last decade. If this acceleration continues, sea level rise could be even higher this century than the 1 or 2 meters that mainstream scientists now project – possibly much higher.

We could be witnessing the greatest change in the Earth environment in possibly a million plus years.

new topics

top topics
<< 18  19  20   >>

log in