|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 583 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
Some of that released radiation makes it into space, and the rest of it ends up getting reflected back down to Earth when it hits certain things in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, methane gas and water vapor -- the car windows.
Not all of it is reflected back down to earth. Some of it is absorbed again by nitrogen and oxygen via conduction. IOW, carbon dioxide molecules hit other molecules in the air before any radiation is emitted from them. You want more examples? Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 583 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
I understand all of that and don't disagree. I'm saying the word trapped is misleading because it suggests co2 holds onto the heat long enough to cause an imbalance and increase the temperature of the earth. If co2 and it's absorptive capabilities were the only process involved in energy balance, there would indeed be a slowdown in the release of heat into space. But that's not the case. Heat is transferred to nitrogen and oxygen via conduction from co2 molecules and from the surface of the earth itself. Heat is truly trapped by these molecules for a very long time before convection raises the warmer air to higher elevations where the air becomes colder and drops again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 583 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
I know n2 and o2 don't absorb infrared. But they certainly absorb through conduction and there are vastly more of them than co2, therefore it's disingenuous to say co2 traps heat when trying to make a case for AGW because n2 and o2 hold onto heat for a much longer time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 583 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
As for heat transfer to the ocean and ice, that also occurs through conduction. But since the ocean holds vastly more heat than the atmosphere, the net transfer of heat is from ocean to ice and the atmosphere.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 583 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
RAZD writes: So you are just explaining how the increased energy in CO2 molecules from absorption of infrared is transferred to other molecules and heating them up ... resulting in a net warmer atmosphere. I did no such thing. How is it warmer? No added energy here. Co2 is part of the atmosphere. Transferring energy from one molecule in the atmosphere to another warms nothing up. Co2 is said to trap heat. No its not the molecule trapping the heat ; nitrogen and oxygen are trapping the heat until they transfer the heat back to co2 higher in the atmosphere. Actually, higher levels of co2 higher in the atmosphere acts to cool the atmosphere.
RAZD writes: The more (Man-made\released) CO2 molecules in the air, the more such absorptions and transfers occur and the warmer the atmosphere gets. Again false. No new energy added. Each additional molecule of co2 acts to cool high in the atmosphere. The temperature of all molecules at each level in the atmosphere are exactly the same. Obviously, all molecules share their energy with each other. What you are saying is the co2 molecules emit radiation and are reabsorbed by other co2 molecules without effect to the rest of the atmosphere when the data doesn't support that. Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given. Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 583 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
You didn't understand anything I said. How you came to those conclusions about what I said is beyond me. You must be doing that on purpose. I will take each erroneous idea of yours and correct it piece by piece when I have time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 583 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
RAZD writes: So you are going to deny something that children and animals know by observing that the air cools after the sun sets and warms in the morning when the sun rises. How does that warming happen without energy being added? This basic information has been known for so long it is hard to find on the internet, like proving that 1+1=2. I said any new energy. The atmosphere warms up in the morning because the sun shines again. This happens everyday. Its not new. When a co2 molecule transfers its energy to the n2 and o2, the total energy in the atmosphere remains the same. The only way you could possibly say this is added energy is by saying the default position is the release of energy into space from the co2 molecule. If that is what really happens then the atmosphere would be warmer as the co2 would absorb infrared then pass it onto the n2 and o2 who would hold onto it for a very long time, whereas your scenario would only hold infrared for a microsecond before being released into space. In your scenario, the more co2 is added, the more the infrared is held up before being released. This scenario is the only way for global warming alarmism to work. The problem though.....is it the correct scenario? My scenario is a warmer atmosphere than yours initially with low co2. Higher amounts of co2 do not warm the atmosphere in my scenario. They appreciably warm the atmosphere in your scenario. You havent proven your scenario is reality and i havent proven my scenario is reality. Therefore, you cannot say the atmosphere would be warmer today under my scenario. What we can say is that the atmosphere would be much colder today if co2 were the only thing keeping radiation from automatically exiting into space. There just isnt enough co2 to hold the heat in long enough to maintain our current temperature. Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 583 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
RAZD writes: The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect... Beginning with work by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, scientists had understood that gases in the atmosphere might trap the heat received from the Sun. As Fourier put it, energy in the form of visible light from the Sun easily penetrates the atmosphere to reach the surface and heat it up, but heat cannot so easily escape back into space. For the air absorbs invisible heat rays (infrared radiation) rising from the surface. The warmed air radiates some of the energy back down to the surface, helping it stay warm. This was the effect that would later be called, by an inaccurate analogy, the "greenhouse effect." ... Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas in the atmosphere that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H2O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand. Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so the trace of CO2 altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere. (For a more complete explanation of how the "greenhouse effect" works, follow the link ... on Simple Models of Climate.)(1) I am very aware of all of this. However it makes many unwarranted assumptions. Heres one: " The warmed air radiates some of the energy back down to the surface, helping it stay warm. This was the effect that would later be called, by an inaccurate analogy, the "greenhouse effect." ..." He completely ignores the possibility that instead of radiating heat back to the surface, co2 could give its heat to other molecules and thereby heating the atmosphere to an even higher degree as you even saw. He didnt even stop to think that perhaps reflectinv some of its heat back is not powerful enough to cause the temperature of todays earth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 583 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
RAZD writes: Again, this is rudimentary initial scientific work from 1859. Since that time it has been shown to be substantially correct, as is detailed in the Bloomburg article mentioned in Message 333 and Message 379. What exactly has been shown to be substantially correct? Please be specific.
RAZD writes: Unless you have an actual evidenced based argument that explains this data differently, then the information is unrefuted that greenhouse gases actually cause global warming AND they are caused by human activity. The data shows nothing of the kind. I gave you my argument and the evidence for it. It explains the data much better than the fairytale you presented.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 583 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
Here is what your bloomberg article failed to look into as for reasons for warming since 1850:
" Thermalization and the complete dominance of water vapor in reverse-thermalization explain why atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) has no significant effect on climate. Reported average global temperature (AGT) since before 1900 is accurately (98% match with measured trend) explained by a combination of ocean cycles (41.7%), sunspot number anomaly time-integral (38.0%) and increased atmospheric water vapor (20.3%)." Does co2 match the temperature record by 98%? No, it doesn't. Levels of high reflecting low level clouds, ocean cycles including ENSO, and levels of water vapor do. See Dan Pangburns article here: provide sound reasoning why it is wrong. Climate Change Drivers Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 583 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
Delete
Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given. Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given. Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given. Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given. Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given. Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given. Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given. Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given. Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given. Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given. Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 583 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Search results for dan pangburn
RAZD writes: He is also listed as an Aerospace Engineer. Can you tell me what qualifies him to talk about climate science? Dana Nuccetelli blogs about climate and co2 over at the Guardian. He also works at Tetratech as an environmental scientist. What qualifies him to talk about climate science? Here is a link to his linked-in page listing his resume: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dana-nuccitelli-661a447
RAZD writes: . It looks like his listings on Google Scholar amount to vanity press publications - in a magazine he is a member of, and which did not appear to have a single bonafide climate scientist. Curious. Do you know of any article in a peer reviewed climate science publication? So, he is not a professional climate scientist. The paper he is published in doesn't have any professional climate scientists in it. If Dana Nuccitelli can get paid to blog about climate science while being in another branch of science, why can't dan do the same as a mechanical engineer? I can go on google scholar and see all the articles in climate science publications. AGW is a flawed theory. Very little is accepted in climate science publications that does ot support the notion that co2 is the cause of global warming. Why would I post that stuff here? No pro AGW article I have ever seen even attempts to address any of the issues Dan brings up.
RAZD writes: Also I tried to look him up on wikipedia but there was no article about him or that mentioned him. Doesn't sound like a credible source to me, sorry. Credibility is in the eye of the beholder. A person or organisation can be right about 90% of the time and still be wrong on some things because what they are wrong about is foundational to the rest of their conclusions. Climate change is one of those things. The argument can be totally sound but still be false because the foundation has serious flaws in it. Another point is that climate change is a controversial topic and so sources for both sides of an issue can be equally credible.
RAZD writes: In other words greenhouse gases account for warming the atmosphere and that energy is transferred to other molecules in the air, warming them in the process. It would be shocking if only some gases heated up. Thanks that's all I need. That's all you need for what? You think he made your point for you? All the gases are heated up by either thermalization from co2 or from contact with the warm ground. How does that make your case for co2 being the cause of a warmer atmosphere than would be without it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 583 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
What issues? Does it deal with any of the issues my article brought up? No? Who cares then?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 583 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
It's not my fault you're slow on the uptake.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 583 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
modulus writes: Our long-term analysis of MISR data finds no statistically significant correlations between cosmic rays and global albedo or globally averaged cloud height, and no evidence for any regional or lagged correlations. Moreover, epoch superposition analysis of Forbush decreases reveals no detectable albedo response to cosmic ray decreases, thereby placing an upper limit on the possible influence of cosmic ray variations on global albedo of 0.0029 per 5% decrease. The implications for recent global warming are discussed. A short term change in cosmic ray flux is unlikely to show up in total global albedo. The effect of cosmic rays is most likely to be long term and it's most intense effect would be in the intertropical convergence zone. An enormous amount of heat is lost to space in this zone through thunderstorms and hurricanes and cyclones. The sun also shines more directly in this zone than the other latitudes. A increase in condensation due to cosmic rays would have the most effect here. Also, optical thickness would likely increase first before any change in albedo, so that would explain the lack of albedo change in the study. Also, increases in albedo in the ITCZ could be balanced by decreases at other latitudes. But the effect at the ITCZ would far outweigh any effect at other latitudes. Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given. Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024