Simple Question About AGW

[Pipirr]

Keep waiving those arms Capeldodger.

But then how could he type?

 

[David Rodale]

But then how could he type?

Easy, he's using his toes.

 

[a_unique_person]

Please explain to Alric what a litmus test is.

To be honest, we've been enduring relentless ad hom attacks, many quite vicious, since the first day I joined this forum. No apology is forthcoming as his ignoramus first response is typical.

Now, what is the litmus test for AGW? Since oceans cover ~70% of earth's surface, they must warm annually in order for global warming to be present as it is claimed the sun's energy is essentially constant.

No, there are currents, which are changing, and natural cycles. It's the long term trend that contains the signal.

Next, it must be explained why the troposphere is not warming as global climate models dictate.

It is, within the error bounds, and the stratosphere is cooling, also as predicted.

If CO2 is "trapping" all this heat, where has it gone and where is it going now?

I patiently await your non-reply.

This seems to be a concept too complex for some people to understand. "Trapping" is just an expression. It really just hinders the transmission of radiation from the earth to galactic space. The more CO2, the slower the transmission.

 

[Round Robin]

If CO2 is "trapping" all this heat, where has it gone and where is it going now?
I patiently await your non-reply.

Physics was a loooong time ago, but:

Our atmosphere is largely transparent to visible wavelengths of light (hence our eyes evolved to see in these wavelengths)--transparent because photons of these wavelengths are of the wrong energy to be absorbed by the molecules that make up our atmosphere.

The visible wavelengths reach the earth and heat the surface, which then radiates this heat as infrared radiation. CO2 and other greenhouse gases, which are largely transparent to visible wavelengths, absorbs infrared (because infrared photons are of the correct energy) and then re-emits it. However, it does not re-emit the photons necessarily in the same direction and some of them end radiating back to earth. Some are re-emitted toward space, which is why not *all* the heat is "trapped".

This is how radiation is "trapped". It is not stored by the CO2, but rather the CO2 molecules absorb and re-emit infrared photons and some are re-emitted back to earth.

I posted above how this works with absorption nebulae in space; the physics is the same.

 

[a_unique_person]

Physics was a loooong time ago, but:

Our atmosphere is largely transparent to visible wavelengths of light (hence our eyes evolved to see in these wavelengths)--transparent because photons of these wavelengths are of the wrong energy to be absorbed by the molecules that make up our atmosphere.

The visible wavelengths reach the earth and heat the surface, which then radiates this heat as infrared radiation. CO2 and other greenhouse gases, which are largely transparent to visible wavelengths, absorbs infrared (because infrared photons are of the correct energy) and then re-emits it. However, it does not re-emit the photons necessarily in the same direction and some of it ends radiating back to earth. Some of it is re-emitted toward space, which is why not *all* the heat is "trapped".

This is how radiation is "trapped". It is not stored by the CO2, but the CO2 molecules absorb and re-emit infrared photons, and some are re-emitted back to earth.

I posted above how this works with absorption nebulae in space; the physics is the same.

But have you falsified it?

 

[David Rodale]

No, there are currents, which are changing, and natural cycles. It's the long term trend that contains the signal.



It is, within the error bounds, and the stratosphere is cooling, also as predicted.



This seems to be a concept too complex for some people to understand. "Trapping" is just an expression. It really just hinders the transmission of radiation from the earth to galactic space. The more CO2, the slower the transmission.

Talk is cheap. A big problem I have with your side of the argument is you lecture. Provide the scientific evidence. Put up or shut up.

We provide the science papers, you give us links to blogs and news articles.


The troposphere is not warming as dictated by AGW hypotheses. It should be 2-3x higher than the surface. RSS was the closest thing you've got and that still didn't meet expectations. Now a recent article shows UAH is the more accurate data. Do you find it coincidental RSS now is in agreement with UAH?
http://www.uah.edu/News/pdf/climatemodel.pdf

You also claim UHI is a non-issue. Show us the evidence AUP. You don't have any. The IPCC ignored it completely by refusing to consider the myriad of research demonstrating UHI and rather favored Parker/Peterson who didn't even perform an empirical measurements! It is a complete fraud.

This paper alone completely obliterates IPCC conclusions about UHI. Earlier studies was available prior to AR4....no excuses.
http://www.geography.uc.edu/~kenhinke/uhi/Hinkel&Nelson_JGR-A_2007.pdf

 

[CapelDodger]

eugenics did.

Briefly, and disastrously for the principle.

but political events like the Bali conference happen all the time.

I have to take issue with that. Bali got enormous coverage and attention, and I can't think of anything equivalent. G8? Yawn ... What's more, we have the Copenhagen Conference coming up in 2009, and that's when they're definitely getting down to talking about how they'll discuss what to do about AGW. These diplomats have really got a rocket under them this time. My money's on Geneva for 2011 (really; I've bought options on hotel rooms for the entire summer ).

the political, diplomatic and industrial impact of the AGW theory doesn't prove anything; it merely demonstrates its power as a meme--AGW is good at reproducing itself.

As I understand "meme", it's subject to natural selection. And AGW is not an attractive idea to the movers and shakers in the world. They really don't need this, they've got enough on their plates without the climate friggin' about but there it is, they have had to reluctantly accept it. Even the White House is engaged in a fighting retreat.

Since the meme isn't doing it on looks, it must be doing it on something else. Which is wealth of evidence and scientific advice, IMO.

fair enough, but a lot of the most adamant pro-AGW scientists aren't all that young. Hansen, for example, is no spring chicken.

More to the point is how many of the younger sceintists don't just take AGW as a given and carry on from there. Damn' few. These folk have careers yet to come, why waste effort up a blind alley? (Hansen's been on the AGW thing since the 70's, by the way.) What you'll find in the GW Sceptic field is mostly lead authors whose careers are behind them and who staked out their rejection of AGW decades ago.

sure... but when and only when the science is demonstrably done and dusted, and if and only if it says you were right. my position, after all, is "i don't know, and i doubt *we* really know."

I know. I'm a gardener. We knows things, us gardeners .

 

[Round Robin]

But have you falsified it?

I tried, but the extremely rarefied gas of absorption nebulae keeps making lines in my spectrograph, and Venus keeps being hotter than Mercury.

 

[Alric]

This is how radiation is "trapped". It is not stored by the CO2, but the CO2 molecules absorb and re-emit infrared photons, and some are re-emitted back to earth.

[sarcasm]Yeah and do you have litmus test for your explanation? I didn't think so. You are clearly wrong because some guy somewhere disagrees with you. That physical principle you describe has not been demonstrated in a bottle. IN A BOTTLE!

In conclusion, I am sure Al Gore agrees with you.[/sarcasm]

Its sad that a good response like Round Robin's can me make think of the responses that will follow...

 

[Slimething]

You're a chemist? Do people ask you to prove all the results you give them from first principles?

Yes. That's what being a scientist is. Not only do I have to prove it once but I have to prove it every time I use it. How's that?

Now that I've answered your question, why don't you try answering a few of mine?

 

[Slimething]

Sorry, can I just check what it is you're suggesting here? You're saying that the fact that the surface temperature of Venus is hotter than that of Mercury despite being twice as far from the Sun is due to its atmospheric pressure, and not to the greenhouse effect?

Maybe. I'm just posting a calculation based on the Ideal Gas Law that speaks to the fact that the warming effects are solely attributable to the composition of the atmosphere. Really, Venus is not a very good example of the greenhouse effect.

 

[Slimething]

Uhm,

On what basis so you set N1 = N2?

Uhm, no N1 or N2 in my equation. So, as they're both not there, it's pretty obvious they would be equal.

Such that you can make the statement that PV/T for earth equals PV/T for Venus?

Did I say that? I just point out that the pressure of the atmosphere has a warming effect as well. If the greenhouse effect exists on Venus, my guess is that it is dwarfed by the warming due to pressure, especially given that saturation is achieved fairly high in Venus' atmosphere.

And my introductory chemistry texts are at home.

Maybe you should wait before posting, then?

 

[Slimething]

Uhm, no it wouldn't

says the astronomer's son.

Really? Is your Daddy home?

you are saying that Venus at 1 atm would be colder than Pluto.

Did I say that? No, no, I didn't. Obviously an intelligent offspring of an astronomer would be able to conceive that Venus without its present atmosphere would be a different kettle of fish altogether, yes? Perhaps not. Take my word for it.

Hey at 1 atm, and 8K, the atmosphere would be 100% Helium, and Venus isn't big enough to hold 1 atm of Helium.

How do you get that the pressure of a planet dictates the composition of the atmosphere? The Earth is at 1 atm and it's got lots more than He.

You got that right, now guys fess up to your lapses in critical thinking.

Time to talk to Dad again, sonny.

 

[Slimething]

Imagine sarcasm tags around my post for better understanding of my thoughts about Slimethings "calculation."

Or to make it unambiguous...I am saying that his calculation is nonsense.

I could be wrong. You may not be a simpering fool. Perhaps you'd like to show us the mistake I made? This is high school chemistry, after all. Go ahead, genius, try it.

 

[a_unique_person]

Maybe. I'm just posting a calculation based on the Ideal Gas Law that speaks to the fact that the warming effects are solely attributable to the composition of the atmosphere. Really, Venus is not a very good example of the greenhouse effect.

I'm sorry, Slimething, but you just blew it all with that statement. I'm not a scientist, and even I can see that someone who calls himself one can have no idea at all.

 

[CapelDodger]

The visible wavelengths reach the earth and heat the surface, which then radiates this heat as infrared radiation. CO2 and other greenhouse gases, which are largely transparent to visible wavelengths, absorbs infrared (because infrared photons are of the correct energy) and then re-emits it. However, it does not re-emit the photons necessarily in the same direction and some of it ends radiating back to earth. Some of it is re-emitted toward space, which is why not *all* the heat is "trapped".

This is how radiation is "trapped". It is not stored by the CO2, but the CO2 molecules absorb and re-emit infrared photons, and some are re-emitted back to earth.

That's a big part of the story. The whole story (as ever) isn't quite as simple as that ...

Some of the energy captured is converted to kinetic energy within the molecule - its component atoms oscillate more. If it's in collision with another air molecule while in that state it can transfer some of that kinetic energy directly. So it's a bit more complicated, but it's all calculable.

I posted above how this works with absorption nebulae in space; the physics is the same.

The environment is very different, though, because nebulae have very weakly interacting particles whereas the atmosphere has strongly interacting particles. It's a real crush down here .

That said, yes, the nebulae do tell the same story. After all, it's not as if spectroscopy is a new field, nor its close involvement with astronomy.

 

[Slimething]

...and pressure has no direct bearing on temperature.

You must be braindead. There is no other explanation.

 

[Round Robin]

[...] Really, Venus is not a very good example of the greenhouse effect.

Are you quite sure of this? I studied Planetary Science 10 years ago and the predominant theory then was that Venus is an ideal example of a "runaway greenhouse effect" due to the increased solar flux... that began evaporating the oceans... that put more water vapor (greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere... that increased the atmospheric temperature... that accelerated the evaporation of the oceans... that put more water vapor into the atmosphere... that... ... ...

A quick wiki/google search didn't reveal any indication that this theory has been abandoned in the intervening years.

My recollection is that, absent the greenhouse effect of Venus, its temperature would not be dissimilar to Earth's. It seems unlikely that planetary scientists would neglect the ideal gas law in performing their calculations.

 

[Slimething]

I'm sorry, Slimething, but you just blew it all with that statement. I'm not a scientist, and even I can see that someone who calls himself one can have no idea at all.

Show your math. How much of Venus' surface temperature is GWG-related?

 

[Slimething]

Are you quite sure of this? I studied Planetary Science 10 years ago and the predominant theory then was that Venus is an ideal example of a "runaway greenhouse effect" due to the increased solar flux... that began evaporating the oceans... that put more water vapor (greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere... that increased the atmospheric temperature... that accelerated the evaporation of the oceans... that put more water vapor into the atmosphere... that... ... ...

A quick wiki/google search didn't reveal any indication that this theory has been abandoned in the intervening years.

My recollection is that, absent the greenhouse effect of Venus, its temperature would not be dissimilar to Earth's. It seems unlikely that planetary scientists would neglect the ideal gas law in performing their calculations.

Really? How did they get around Beer's Law (saturation effect), 96+% CO2 and 90 atm worth of heat? I could be wrong here but that doesn't seem to be correlative to the situation on Earth. Show me your math.