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.
reply to post by Maslo
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.
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.
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).
Its constant over larger time scales. This regular predictable variation can be averaged out and thus ignored. Climate is not weather.
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.
If you dont believe CO2 can cause warming, how do you explain the results of this experiment?: www.espere.net...
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?
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.
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.
You can not increase temperature without increasing energy, that is not how physics works.
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.
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
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.
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.
But it's the quantitative claims that destroys this argument.
If it only gets hotter over a desert, there is going to be less vapor than if it gets hotter over an entire ocean.
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.
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?
Is it just a perfect storm of cosmic rays increasing, interstellar gas increasing solar radiance, Pacific Decadel Oscillation and other factors?
We're obviously not going to turn into Venus, because we have clouds and Venus does not...
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?
reply to post by Maslo
The Sun provides constant amount of energy over the time scales in question (last 200 years).
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.
Temperature is a function of incoming and outgoing energy.
Temperature is indeed a measure of the kinetic energy of particles.
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).
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.
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)
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 second sentence contradicts the first. If there is no such thing as absolute amount of energy leaving the atmosphere, what has NASA measured?
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.
Majority of scientists agree that GG theory is real. Nothing has been disproven, maybe only disputed
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.
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.
No, it is from increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. Cosmic rays and solar irradiance show no recent pattern or explanatory power for currently observed warming.
Venus is almost completely covered with clouds.
We can rely on the implications from the laws of physics.
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.
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.
Which one is it? You obviously don't know or are confusing yourself because you don't understand the physical laws at work.
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?
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 is NOT insulation, it is a gas, and as I've explained several times, it has a very specific capacity for retaining heat.
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.
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.
CO2 acts as insulation, therefore things get hotter. You would be laughed out of academic circles with those arguments.
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.
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.
False. Isotopic distribution is but one factor in global warming, and a small one at that. Please read the source material I've provided.
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.
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.
reply to post by Maslo
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?
But heat movements inside the atmosphere are irrelevant
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.
It is both of course: Temperature (a measure of the kinetic energy of particles) is a function of incoming and outgoing energy.
CO2 molecules can absorb "heat" until they are no longer CO2 molecules. You probably meant IR, not 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.
Glass container holds gasses (prevents hottest molecules from escaping), gravity holds gasses (prevents hottest molecules from escaping). Analogous.
Glass containers play the role of gravity, not CO2.
There is no need for complex math in such a simple experiment.
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.
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.
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.
I didn't say the warming was caused by solar variation, you did.
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.
Radiation, as it pertains to climate, does not work without convection and conduction.
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.
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 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.
Because you can't? If it's such a simple experiment, it should be easily verifiable with calculus.
Skepticalscience.com is not a peer-reviewed source for climate studies and does not represent the current theories put forth by the community.
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.
All of your sources are from the same place, a known AGW proponent website, which again, is not peer-reviewed.
I have hundreds more that support it.
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 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?
CO2 LAGS temperature... this means that global warming is not man-made because it was happening 400,000 years ago.