Global warming

CapelDodger said:
If there's something in there you kept to yourself, well, this Forum obviously isn't important to you. I'm sure you told all your floozies about it :mad:. You just don't care about us any more, do you?
Click to expand...

Actually, I just don't care about you.

:deadhorse


I mostly hang out here, JREF Forums. Not RealClimate - which has gained the iconic status of Al Gore, the IPCC, and Hansen, I've noticed.

Naturally there's a lot of "What about this, eh?" that goes on, it being a public forum and all, but there's also a lot of "I heard this, from here" and "I heard this, and thought ..." .

I'm far less interested in where you've heard something than I am in what you've heard. Only then might I care about where you heard it.

So what have you heard?
Click to expand...
I heard that no one has solved the warmers problem, that you can't warm the planet by 5C just adding CO2, even taking albedo into account.
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
Regarding the possible consequences of CO2 in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere. With CO2 we are talking about "three body problems". The interaction of the molecules with the rest of the atmosphere are impossible to model with computers. It appears impossible to know the relative proportion of energy transferred from CO2 via re emitted photons, and the proportion transferred to surrounding molecules as kinetic energy. In turn this implies lab experiments on CO2 do not provide a valid factual basis for the behavior of CO2 in the upper atmosphere. Also note the 2nd law of thermodynamics, energy does not move from a cold area to a hot area.
Click to expand...

I know I'm going out on a limb here, but that sounds like utter piffle.
 
Lucifuge Rofocale said:
I heard that no one has solved the warmers problem, that you can't warm the planet by 5C just adding CO2, even taking albedo into account.
Click to expand...

:confused: 5C to 6C is the upper limit of projections, but even 3C is going to have drastic consequences, as we reach a tipping point for major changes to climate and ecosystems. Do you feel lucky, punk?
 
mhaze said:
You do not, maybe, want another chance at this one?
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing about the 2nd law, I'm saying your portrayal of the issue is piffle.

If convection was the overall driver of the issue, the stratosphere would not be cooling while the troposphere is warming. Clearly something other than just convection is at work.
 
a_unique_person said:
I'm not arguing about the 2nd law, I'm saying your portrayal of the issue is piffle.

If convection was the overall driver of the issue, the stratosphere would not be cooling while the troposphere is warming. Clearly something other than just convection is at work.
Click to expand...

How can you not argue about the second law of thermodynamics and still want to more energy from a cold area (tropo and stratosphere) to a hot area(surface)?
 
a_unique_person said:
It is radiation, not convection, that is transferring the energy. The second law is about convection.
Click to expand...
So if you have a block of metal glowing white hot, and another glowing red hot, energy can be transferred from red to white by radiation resulting in a net gain of heat by the white hot block.
 
mhaze said:
So if you have a block of metal glowing white hot, and another glowing red hot, energy can be transferred from red to white by radiation resulting in a net gain of heat by the white hot block.
Click to expand...

In this situation, as has been described before, the radiation from the sun is largely transparent to the atmosphere, and strikes the earth. The radiation from the earth is at a different frequency, and the atmosphere can absorb it, including a band that is absorbed by CO2. That radiation is then released in a random direction, some to continue it's path out to space, some to head back to earth or the atmosphere. The CO2 is sort of like a rubber wall that the radiation bounces off.

The actual release of the absorbed radiation, and the direction in which it heads, has nothing to do with the temperature of where it is coming from and where it is going to.
 
Last edited:
a_unique_person said:
Once the feedback kicks in, there won't be any going back, that is, a tipping point. Even if we did manage to reduce CO2, the changes in albedo, the release of methane, etc, will be beyond our ability to undo what we have started.
Click to expand...

And you completely ignore that page 826 of chapter 10 does not substantiate your assertions, which remain your personal unsubstantiated beliefs.

As Diamond noted, you use citations as flyswatters, having no concept of their meaning or purpose.
 
mhaze said:
So if you have a block of metal glowing white hot, and another glowing red hot, energy can be transferred from red to white by radiation resulting in a net gain of heat by the white hot block.
Click to expand...

The radiation will be sent in all directions by both, with some going from the red hot to the white hot, and vice versa. The white hot will be sending out more than the red hot.

If the white hot was a globe, surrounded by red hot little balls, then all the radiation would be trapped by the little balls, and which would then re-radiate it out in random directions, some of which would go back to where it came from in the first place.
 
mhaze said:
And you completely ignore that page 826 of chapter 10 does not substantiate your assertions, which remain your personal unsubstantiated beliefs.

As Diamond noted, you use citations as flyswatters, having no concept of their meaning or purpose.
Click to expand...

That was in reference to the claim of the rise being at least 3C, up to 6C or so.
 
a_unique_person said:
That was in reference to the claim of the rise being at least 3C, up to 6C or so.
Click to expand...

Your reference does not support your assertion. Further, it presumes a 1% CO2 rise per year, it does a 1000 year projection, and the 3C - 6C "worst case" is for 1200 ppm CO2. There is NO mention of tipping points, which are the basis for your entire Alarmist point of view.

Using the data on the page you reference, and it's projections LR is correct.

Burning all fossil fuel reserves, you could not reach a 5C increase.

Misuse of references, intellectual dishonesty, and a refusal on repeated requests to acknowledge the problems.
 
mhaze said:
So if you have a block of metal glowing white hot, and another glowing red hot, energy can be transferred from red to white by radiation resulting in a net gain of heat by the white hot block.
Click to expand...

The important point is that there is energy flowing from the red hot block of metal to the white hot block of metal. That extra energy will make the white hot block of metal slightly hotter than if the red hot block of metal wasn't there.

Of course the net energy flow is from the white hot block of metal to the red hot block of metal, just as the net energy flow is from earth's surface to the atmosphere. But that doesn't mean the atmosphere cannot provide energy to the surface.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom