Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 271 of 941 (788863)
08-06-2016 4:39 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by frako
08-06-2016 3:27 AM


Still haven't proven anything. You showed warming and extinctions going hand in hand. So? You have not proven the volcanic carbon dioxide caused the warming.
Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by frako, posted 08-06-2016 3:27 AM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by frako, posted 08-06-2016 4:55 AM foreveryoung has replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 272 of 941 (788865)
08-06-2016 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by foreveryoung
08-06-2016 4:39 AM


Permian waning of the low-latitude Alleghenian/Variscan/Hercynian orogenesis led to a long collisional orogeny gap that cut down the availability of chemically weatherable fresh silicate rock resulting in a high-CO2 atmosphere and global warming. The correspondingly reduced delivery of nutrients to the biosphere caused further increases in CO2 and warming. Melting of polar ice curtailed sinking of O2- and nutrient-rich cold brines while pole-to-equator thermal gradients weakened. Wind shear and associated wind-driven upwelling lessened, further diminishing productivity and carbon burial. As the Earth warmed, dry climates expanded to mid-latitudes, causing latitudinal expansion of the Ferrel circulation cell at the expense of the polar cell. Increased coastal evaporation generated O2- and nutrient-deficient warm saline bottom water (WSBW) and delivered it to a weakly circulating deep ocean. Warm, deep currents delivered ever more heat to high latitudes until polar sinking of cold water was replaced by upwelling WSBW. With the loss of polar sinking, the ocean was rapidly filled with WSBW that became increasingly anoxic and finally euxinic by the end of the Permian. Rapid incursion of WSBW could have produced ∼20 m of thermal expansion of the oceans, generating the well-documented marine transgression that flooded embayments in dry, hot Pangaean mid-latitudes. The flooding further increased WSBW production and anoxia, and brought that anoxic water onto the shelves. Release of CO2 from the Siberian traps and methane from clathrates below the warming ocean bottom sharply enhanced the already strong greenhouse. Increasingly frequent and powerful cyclonic storms mined upwelling high-latitude heat and released it to the atmosphere. That heat, trapped by overlying clouds of its own making, suggests complete breakdown of the dry polar cell. Resulting rapid and intense polar warming caused or contributed to extinction of the remaining latest Permian coal forests that could not migrate any farther poleward because of light limitations. Loss of water stored by the forests led to aquifer drainage, adding another ∼5 m to the transgression. Non-peat-forming vegetation survived at the newly moist poles. Climate feedback from the coal-forest extinction further intensified warmth, contributing to delayed biotic recovery that generally did not begin until mid-Triassic, but appears to have resumed first at high latitudes late in the Early Triassic. Current quantitative models fail to generate high-latitude warmth and so do not produce the chain of events we outline in this paper. Future quantitative modeling addressing factors such as polar cloudiness, increased poleward heat transport by deep water and its upwelling by cyclonic storms, and sustainable mid-latitude sinking of warm brines to promote anoxia, warming, and thermal expansion of deep water may more closely simulate conditions indicated by geological and paleontological data.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/...rticle/pii/S0031018203006679
But if you wont believe that co2 is a greenhouse gas its basically pointless debating with you.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by foreveryoung, posted 08-06-2016 4:39 AM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by foreveryoung, posted 08-06-2016 5:06 AM frako has replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 273 of 941 (788866)
08-06-2016 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by frako
08-06-2016 4:55 AM


Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. That is not under dispute. Prove to me greenhouse gases cause global warming.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by frako, posted 08-06-2016 4:55 AM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by frako, posted 08-06-2016 5:20 AM foreveryoung has replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 274 of 941 (788867)
08-06-2016 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by foreveryoung
08-06-2016 5:06 AM


Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. That is not under dispute. Prove to me greenhouse gases cause global warming.
ok
Do we now at least agree that co2 concentration and temperatures correlate?
p.s. can you please tell me what do you think causes global warming so we can get that out of the way first.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by foreveryoung, posted 08-06-2016 5:06 AM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by foreveryoung, posted 08-06-2016 5:39 AM frako has replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 275 of 941 (788868)
08-06-2016 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by frako
08-06-2016 5:20 AM


They correlate but carbon dioxide level increases always follow temperature increases.
Global warming is caused by more total solar energy being absorbed by earths surface which is not necessarily a result of increased solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere.
There are many possible causes for that. Total density of the atmosphere is what causes the earth to be warmer than the moon. If we were the same distance from the sun as mars, we would be warmer than mars because of our denser atmosphere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by frako, posted 08-06-2016 5:20 AM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by frako, posted 08-06-2016 6:08 AM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 277 by NoNukes, posted 08-06-2016 6:11 AM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 278 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-06-2016 11:31 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 276 of 941 (788869)
08-06-2016 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by foreveryoung
08-06-2016 5:39 AM


They correlate but carbon dioxide level increases always follow temperature increases.
This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.
While the orbital cycles triggered the initial warming, overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occured after that atmospheric CO2 increase (Figure 2)
CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?
Total density of the atmosphere is what causes the earth to be warmer than the moon. If we were the same distance from the sun as mars, we would be warmer than mars because of our denser atmosphere.
Um so our atmosphere gets denser, and thinner how? Why? yea mars has almost no atmosfere hence no greenhouse effect. But do you seriously think the composition of the atmosfere is no factor. If we had a a radon or other non greenhouse gas atmosphere the density would not matter ass all the heat would easelly pass the non greenhouse gasses.
Edited by frako, : replace helium with radon the desenst gas known but not a greenhouse gas.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by foreveryoung, posted 08-06-2016 5:39 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 277 of 941 (788870)
08-06-2016 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by foreveryoung
08-06-2016 5:39 AM


They correlate but carbon dioxide level increases always follow temperature increases.
Well known, and explained in excruciating detail in any number of sources.
Global warming is caused by more total solar energy being absorbed by earths surface which is not necessarily a result of increased solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere.
What kind of argument is this? Of course global warming is not necessarily caused by increased solar incoming radiation. It can also be caused by greenhouse gasses.
Total density of the atmosphere is what causes the earth to be warmer than the moon. If we were the same distance from the sun as mars, we would be warmer than mars because of our denser atmosphere.
Density is one factor of course, but density density alone is not the issue. It obviously matters what gases make up that extra mass per volume, because it is well known that from observations in the lab that some gasses are more effective at acting as a blanket than others. Gasses like water vapor, methane, and CO2 are all well known to have this effect.
How do your statements help make your case rather than the case that greenhouse cases are of concern?
I note that you were quick to ask frako for proof. Of course he can provide evidence but something less than proof. But you owe us some evidence for your contention that rising CO2 levels have never been a factor in an extinction event over the the last billion years or so.
I seem to recall some unanswered questions left from the last time you were here. Are those answers forthcoming?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by foreveryoung, posted 08-06-2016 5:39 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 278 of 941 (788879)
08-06-2016 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by foreveryoung
08-06-2016 5:39 AM


They correlate but carbon dioxide level increases always follow temperature increases.
Not this time.
Usually people die and then are buried, but that doesn't mean that if you buried someone alive it wouldn't kill him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by foreveryoung, posted 08-06-2016 5:39 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 279 of 941 (788881)
08-06-2016 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Dr Adequate
08-05-2016 10:15 AM


Neither Kaplan nor anyone else at that time was thinking clearly enough about the greenhouse effect to point out that it will operate regardless of the details of the absorption. The trick, again, was to follow how the radiation passed up layer by layer. Consider a layer of the atmosphere so high and thin that heat radiation from lower down would slip through. Add more gas, and the layer would absorb some of the rays. Therefore the place from which heat energy finally left the Earth would shift to a higher layer. That would be a colder layer, unable to radiate heat so efficiently. The imbalance would cause all the lower levels to get warmer, until the high levels became hot enough to radiate as much energy back out as the planet received. (For additional explanation of the "greenhouse effect," follow the link at right to the essay on Simple Models.) Adding carbon dioxide will make for a stronger greenhouse effect regardless of saturation in the lower atmosphere.
That would be plausible if that were the only heat transfer mechanism in our atmosphere. These co2 molecules don't hold onto their absorbed IR and wait to release it until they reach a level in the atmosphere where the radiation can escape into space. Almost immediately after co2 molecules absorb IR, they collide with nitrogen and oxygen molecules and transfer their added heat to them. It's all of these collisions between molecules that transfer heat that really are responsible for the delay in releasing radiation to space. The amount of time co2 molecules are involved in this train of transfers are miniscule and irrelevant.
So, please try again and explain how extra co2 warms the earth.
Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.
Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-05-2016 10:15 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by NoNukes, posted 08-06-2016 9:37 PM foreveryoung has replied
 Message 284 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-07-2016 11:40 PM foreveryoung has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 280 of 941 (788890)
08-06-2016 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by foreveryoung
08-06-2016 12:44 PM


...don't hold onto their absorbed IR and wait to release it until they reach a level in the atmosphere where the radiation can escape into space. Almost immediately after co2 molecules absorb IR, they collide with nitrogen and oxygen molecules and transfer their added heat to them.
If it happen that the CO2 molecules held onto absorbed IR until they could release energy into space, that would mediate global warming. But as you just posted, that does not happen. Just what are you trying to disprove?
Almost immediately after co2 molecules absorb IR, they collide with nitrogen and oxygen molecules and transfer their added heat to them.
Would that effect not increase the temperature of the lower atmosphere? Again, what are you trying to disprove? What you have described here is a mechanism for interrupting the reflection and radiation of heat from the earth's surface out towards space. Absent a gas capable of absorbing the very low frequency of IR re-radiated by the earth, the heat from the ground would more easily radiate back into space. Exactly what is your point? Rather than refute global warming, you are describing a mechanism for keeping heat in the lower atmosphere.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by foreveryoung, posted 08-06-2016 12:44 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by foreveryoung, posted 08-07-2016 10:56 PM NoNukes has replied
 Message 282 by foreveryoung, posted 08-07-2016 11:21 PM NoNukes has replied
 Message 283 by foreveryoung, posted 08-07-2016 11:27 PM NoNukes has not replied
 Message 285 by foreveryoung, posted 08-07-2016 11:40 PM NoNukes has replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 281 of 941 (788925)
08-07-2016 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by NoNukes
08-06-2016 9:37 PM


I was simply refuting the article that dr adequate referred to me. I asked for a method where the addition of greenhouse gases warmed the earth. The article he referred to had holes in it. What I posted was the holes and why the logic doesn't hold up. If you think the highlighted red is a valid model that holds up under scrutiny, feel free to show your work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by NoNukes, posted 08-06-2016 9:37 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by NoNukes, posted 08-08-2016 4:50 AM foreveryoung has replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 282 of 941 (788926)
08-07-2016 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by NoNukes
08-06-2016 9:37 PM


Would that effect not increase the temperature of the lower atmosphere? Again, what are you trying to disprove?
My objective is not to disprove anything. I'm attempting to show that no one can make a solid case that the addition of greenhouse gases can warm the earth. They probably do make some difference at lower concentrations, but I'm talking at a starting level of 400 ppm.
As for conduction being the main method of heat transfer in the lower atmosphere and that increasing temperature there, let's look at it. The only way to heat the earth without increased solar input is to delay the release of heat into space.
If conduction only plays a small role and radiation is dominate, then the only molecules slowing the release of heat are greenhouse gases. If conduction dominates and all molecules play a role in the slowdown of heat release( including all molecules in the oceans), then a conduction dominated world would be vastly warmer than a radiation dominated world. That was your point.
What possible effect would the increase from 400 ppm co2 to 800 ppm co2 be in such a world where co2 makes up less than .00000000001 percent of all molecules involved in the heat transfer train?
Yes, such a world is vastly warmer but doesn't heat up with the addition of co2.
You're looking at it like it would be warmer than what exists today. What you're failing to see is that the 255 K temperature of our earth is the result of conduction dominated heat transfer. Radiative transfer only plays a small role.
Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by NoNukes, posted 08-06-2016 9:37 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by NoNukes, posted 08-08-2016 5:10 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 283 of 941 (788928)
08-07-2016 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by NoNukes
08-06-2016 9:37 PM


What you have described here is a mechanism for interrupting the reflection and radiation of heat from the earth's surface out towards space.hat you have described here is a mechanism for interrupting the reflection and radiation of heat from the earth's surface out towards space.
Yes. It is much more likely that such a method is capable of producing a temperature of 255K than the model you propose.
Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.
Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.
Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by NoNukes, posted 08-06-2016 9:37 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 284 of 941 (788929)
08-07-2016 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by foreveryoung
08-06-2016 12:44 PM


That would be plausible if that were the only heat transfer mechanism in our atmosphere. These co2 molecules don't hold onto their absorbed IR and wait to release it until they reach a level in the atmosphere where the radiation can escape into space. Almost immediately after co2 molecules absorb IR, they collide with nitrogen and oxygen molecules and transfer their added heat to them. It's all of these collisions between molecules that transfer heat that really are responsible for the delay in releasing radiation to space. The amount of time co2 molecules are involved in this train of transfers are miniscule and irrelevant.
So, please try again and explain how extra co2 warms the earth.
It warms the Earth in the way explained by the nice physicists and not in the way that you made up in your head.
To be more precise: after a CO2 molecule absorbs IR, it almost immediately emits it again. The point is that it absorbs IR coming up reflected from the Earth's surface, but re-emits it in all directions.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by foreveryoung, posted 08-06-2016 12:44 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by foreveryoung, posted 08-07-2016 11:43 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 285 of 941 (788930)
08-07-2016 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by NoNukes
08-06-2016 9:37 PM


Absent a gas capable of absorbing the very low frequency of IR re-radiated by the earth, the heat from the ground would more easily radiate back into space. Exactly what is your point?
Greenhouse gases moderate wild temperature fluctuations. In a conduction dominated world, a greenhouse gas free world would be vastly warmer. Nitrogen and oxygen do not release heat as quickly as greenhouse gases do. That would significantly slow down the release of heat to space.
Yes, a greenhouse gas free world would have nothing to slow down radiation leaving earths surface, but that effect would be small if most of earths heat is released from the surface through conduction instead of radiation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by NoNukes, posted 08-06-2016 9:37 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by frako, posted 08-08-2016 2:26 AM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 292 by NoNukes, posted 08-08-2016 5:25 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024