Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8796 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-23-2017 2:22 AM
358 online now:
Coyote, kbertsche, PaulK (3 members, 355 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: DrJones*, willietern
Post Volume:
Total: 821,060 Year: 25,666/21,208 Month: 1,293/2,338 Week: 50/364 Day: 1/49 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2223
24
252627Next
Author Topic:   Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!
foreveryoung
Member
Posts: 887
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 346 of 398 (799624)
02-11-2017 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 344 by Modulous
02-11-2017 11:22 PM


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by Modulous, posted 02-11-2017 11:22 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by Modulous, posted 02-11-2017 11:59 PM foreveryoung has responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7449
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 347 of 398 (799625)
02-11-2017 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 346 by foreveryoung
02-11-2017 11:31 PM


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.

Well that's not what you said, you said

quote:
Trap means to never let it go. You cannot be serious that when co2 absorbs radiation, it keeps it forever?

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.

There are other heat transfers taking place too. You mention 'from the surface', but also 'to the surface', for instance - including notably the ocean and to a degree, the ice. You also neglect the fact that N2 and O2 don't absorb infrared photons, while CO2 and CH4 does.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by foreveryoung, posted 02-11-2017 11:31 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by foreveryoung, posted 02-12-2017 12:39 AM Modulous has responded

    
foreveryoung
Member
Posts: 887
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 348 of 398 (799626)
02-12-2017 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 347 by Modulous
02-11-2017 11:59 PM


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by Modulous, posted 02-11-2017 11:59 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by Modulous, posted 02-12-2017 6:08 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 351 by jar, posted 02-12-2017 6:37 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded
 Message 353 by RAZD, posted 02-12-2017 8:33 AM foreveryoung has responded

    
foreveryoung
Member
Posts: 887
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 349 of 398 (799627)
02-12-2017 12:42 AM


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.
Replies to this message:
 Message 363 by NoNukes, posted 02-13-2017 3:56 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7449
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 350 of 398 (799628)
02-12-2017 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 348 by foreveryoung
02-12-2017 12:39 AM


I know n2 and o2 don't absorb infrared.

Good.

But they certainly absorb through conduction and there are vastly more of them than co2

Yes they do. But where are they absorbing it from? A number of sources, but CO2 is one of them - as are other greenhouse gasses. Where is CO2 getting it from? From absorbing it from the IR radiating from the earth's surface.

This will result in higher atmospheric temperatures as that o2 will also conduct heat to things such as the ground and people etc.

Without the greenhouse gasses, the IR will not be absorbed by them and less heat will be absorbed by the O2 and N2, and the O2 and N2 won't be able to conduct that heat back into people...or oceans.

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.

No it's reasonable to say adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will trap more heat, as that is precisely what happens. The fact this heat gets transferred to other atmospheric molecules doesn't alter the fact that it was CO2 that captured it in the first place.

As for heat transfer to the ocean and ice, that also occurs through conduction.

Exactly. So more heat being stored in O2 and N2 and other atmospheric gasses increases the conduction to the ocean and ice from the atmosphere.

But since the ocean holds vastly more heat than the atmosphere, the net transfer of heat is from ocean to ice and the atmosphere.

Do you have evidence that the oceans are cooling now? This is strange because 10 weeks ago (almost to the minute, see Message 311) you said:

quote:
In short, the co2 concentration is rising because of warming oceans.

If the oceans are warming, yet are giving up more energy to the ice and atmosphere, where is all the extra energy coming from? '3% extra ultraviolet B radiation?' caused by CFCs - Can you show your working?

And if the net conduction is away from the oceans, might it be a problem if this net conduction amount decreases?

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by foreveryoung, posted 02-12-2017 12:39 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29468
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 351 of 398 (799629)
02-12-2017 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 348 by foreveryoung
02-12-2017 12:39 AM


Been over this before foreverforgetful
forever something writes:

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.

And once again you return to the stupidity that is opposition to AGW. This has been explained to you before but I will try to explain it to you again.

The issue is Global Warming. The facts show that is happening. Many of the results of Global Warming are predictable. Many of those results are very detrimental for humans and for life in general.

We are not currently making plans to minimize the pains that will be caused by those results and so it would be wise to try to at least slow down Global Warming.

The only parts of the many causes of Global Warming that we can currently address are the anthropogenic ones.

Since the only factors we can currently address are the anthropogenic factors those are the factors we should address.

In addition we should currently be making plans to address the negative results from Global Warming. Instead of building a truly stupid "Wall" we should be planning and beginning relocating people, businesses and infrastructure from places that will get flooded. We should be looking at creating ways to store and redirect water on a flexible basis. We should be looking at building infrastructure to allow continued farming as the conditions change.

In other words we would be smart to get our heads out of our asses and simply ignore those who oppose the concept of AGW, just laugh at them, pat them on their little heads and tell them that maybe when they grow up they will understand but that all the big kids are too busy working to play games with them right now.

Edited by jar, : appalin spallin mot ---> not


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by foreveryoung, posted 02-12-2017 12:39 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19094
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 352 of 398 (799631)
02-12-2017 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 343 by foreveryoung
02-11-2017 11:18 PM


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.

And the more heat is "reflected" (actually absorbed and re-emitted in random directions), the more heat is retained within the atmosphere ("trapped"), and the more heat is re-emitted back towards the earth and the ocean where it is absorbed again.

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.

Nobody said other molecules were not affected, but now you are talking about the energy of the molecules being transferred not by absorption but by impact, transferring increased energy in other particles (like billiard balls), and which they can now emit in random directions as heat. This increased energy also causes storms to have more energy. This results in more damage from intense storms, like hurricanes, thunderstorms, tornadoes and the like.

You want more examples?

Oh please do. Let's see what you've learned from sites spreading denial, delusions and disinformation.

Meanwhile you have not explained the correlations of heat with man-made\released greenhouse gases seen in Message 333 from the article What's Really Warming The World? ... care to give it a try?

Anything that doesn't explain those trends by something other than global warming is a red-herring to reality.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by foreveryoung, posted 02-11-2017 11:18 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19094
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 353 of 398 (799632)
02-12-2017 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 348 by foreveryoung
02-12-2017 12:39 AM


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.

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.

The more (Man-made\released) CO2 molecules in the air, the more such absorptions and transfers occur and the warmer the atmosphere gets.

Thanks.

Please note that this does not say anything about increased global warming not being directly associated with increase CO2 in the atmosphere from human activity, it just details one of the many ways that energy\heat is captured in the atmosphere, and how some is transferred to the oceans and land.

Arguing about the details of how global climate change is occurring is not arguing that it is not occurring.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by foreveryoung, posted 02-12-2017 12:39 AM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by foreveryoung, posted 02-12-2017 12:16 PM RAZD has responded

  
foreveryoung
Member
Posts: 887
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 354 of 398 (799634)
02-12-2017 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 353 by RAZD
02-12-2017 8:33 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by RAZD, posted 02-12-2017 8:33 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 355 by RAZD, posted 02-12-2017 1:42 PM foreveryoung has responded
 Message 360 by herebedragons, posted 02-13-2017 12:09 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19094
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 355 of 398 (799639)
02-12-2017 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 354 by foreveryoung
02-12-2017 12:16 PM


Explain the observed evidence.
I did no such thing. How is it warmer? No added energy here. ...

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.

quote:
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)


That's 1859 when CO2 was identified as a "greenhouse" gas. 1859.

Or are you going to say that heat is not energy?

... 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.

And you said that N2 and O2 got their increased energy from CO2 collisions - which is how energy is transfered in gases.

Again false. No new energy added. ...

And denial is not an argument .

... 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.

Which curiously does not explain the observations made of global climate change as shown in the article What's Really Warming The World?.

The point is, it does not matter what you say, what you claim and how often you do it -- if you cannot explain the evidence in that article for anthropogenic global climate change then your argument is irrelevant to reality.

Explain the evidence. Then we'll talk about your little claims.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by foreveryoung, posted 02-12-2017 12:16 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by foreveryoung, posted 02-15-2017 1:38 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 376 by foreveryoung, posted 02-15-2017 1:55 AM RAZD has responded

  
foreveryoung
Member
Posts: 887
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 356 of 398 (799645)
02-12-2017 2:03 PM


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.
Replies to this message:
 Message 358 by RAZD, posted 02-12-2017 4:01 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5772
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 9.3


Message 357 of 398 (799654)
02-12-2017 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 343 by foreveryoung
02-11-2017 11:18 PM


You did not address what I asked.

Show me the information in the article that is wrong. The specific information. You are making blanket assertions but are not addressing the particular article I posted.

This should be simple. Quote part of the article and refute the point they are making.

Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by foreveryoung, posted 02-11-2017 11:18 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19094
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 358 of 398 (799659)
02-12-2017 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 356 by foreveryoung
02-12-2017 2:03 PM


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.

Irrelevant.

You still have not explained the observations made of global climate change as shown in the article What's Really Warming The World?.

The point is, it does not matter what you say, what you claim, and how often you do it -- if you cannot explain the evidence in that article for anthropogenic global climate change then your argument is irrelevant to reality.

Explain the evidence. Then we'll talk about your claims.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by foreveryoung, posted 02-12-2017 2:03 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
Riggamortis
Member
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 359 of 398 (799661)
02-12-2017 5:26 PM


Finite fossil fuel
Why isn't it enough that fossil fuels are a finite resource? That alone provides good reason to reduce our dependence on them. The way I see it we have two options:

1. Do nothing until we can no longer extract the fuel we need to run our society. This will certainly lead to catastrophe.
2. Use the fuel we are extracting now to build infrastructure that will reduce our long term dependence on fossil fuels. This will ensure sustainability for future generations.

It's a no brainer and requires zero reference to climate change. So why isn't that enough?


Replies to this message:
 Message 361 by Pressie, posted 02-13-2017 4:54 AM Riggamortis has not yet responded
 Message 365 by Diomedes, posted 02-14-2017 11:07 AM Riggamortis has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1413
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 360 of 398 (799666)
02-13-2017 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 354 by foreveryoung
02-12-2017 12:16 PM


Co2 is said to trap heat. No its not the molecule trapping the heat

It is not that CO2 molecule holds the heat, it is that it prevents it from escaping back into space. This is known to be true by direct experimental measurements.

I find this chart rather convincing:

Source: Baird, C and Cann, M (2008) Environmental chemistry. W.H. Freeman and CO.

The green line represents the IR light energy that is emitted from the earth's surface and should theoretically escape back to space unless there is something that is absorbing it and blocking its escape.

The black line is the experimentally measured intensity of the thermal IR radiation leaving the earth's atmosphere.

CO2 has maximum absorbance in the 4 - 5 um range and the 14 - 16 um range. The range of absorbance of various gases is indicated on the chart above.

Over half of the energy in the 14 -16 um range that should be radiated back into space is not making it and that frequency coincides with the wavelength that CO2 absorbs. Coincidence?

nitrogen and oxygen are trapping the heat until they transfer the heat back to co2 higher in the atmosphere.

I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at here. N2 and O2 do not absorb IR radiation.

Actually, higher levels of co2 higher in the atmosphere acts to cool the atmosphere.

Do you have anything to support this statement with, like maybe data?

Again false. No new energy added.

Energy is being added by the sun, is it not? So without energy being able to leave the system, we would continually heat up (see Venus). There IS energy being added to the system but the system is not reflecting the heat back into space efficiently enough. So what is preventing heat from escaping? See chart above.

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.

Do you have this "data"?

What the data supports is that energy is not returning to space and instead is becoming trapped in the earth's system. The change in the amount of heat escaping earth's atmosphere has been directly measured. So, regardless of where it is in the system, the overall system is increasing in energy ie. temperature. This is all really, really well established science. There is no need for "opinions" or "alternate facts"... The quantity of CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere which is causing less heat to be radiated to space causing our climate to warm.

HBD

Edited by herebedragons, : used superscripts for chemical names instead of subscripts, had to change it quick before anyone saw it and thinks I am a dummy. Hope I didn't miss any.


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by foreveryoung, posted 02-12-2017 12:16 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
2223
24
252627Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017