Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[lomiller]

By the way, your use of <Íñigo Montoya>ad hominem</Íñigo Montoya> is mistaken, you need to revise its concept first.

Good point. The fallacy of ad hominem is takes the form
“you are an idiot therefore your argument is invalid”


“you is an idiot”
Is an insult but since there is no reference to the argument there the fallacy of ad hominem isn’t present.


“your argument is idiotic”
Is merely an observation. There is no reference to the person making the argument therefore the fallacy of ad hominem has not been committed.

None of this should not be confused with evaluating the status of a legitimate vs illegitimate authority. Since an argument to illegitimate authority is a fallacy it’s perfectly reasonable to point out the fact that someone is not a legitimate authority in a field.

 

[macdoc]

I see r-j has never bothered to read the links in my signature despite being advised to do so.
The ignorance then is wiliful.

The physics GHG is well understood and the anthro released addition to the carbon cycle well tracked via isotope. Gets tiresome dealing with constant whinging.

 

[r-j]

Does a CO2 molecule that has warmed, by absorbing IR, impart that energy to other non-greenhouse gas molecules in the form of translational kinetic energy, or does it make the atmosphere warmer only in the sense of re-radiating IR?

Is there a difference between the two?

 

[r-j]

Since an argument to illegitimate authority is a fallacy it’s perfectly reasonable to point out the fact that someone is not a legitimate authority in a field.

You mean, like everyone posting here?

 

[DC]

Does a CO2 molecule that has warmed, by absorbing IR, impart that energy to other non-greenhouse gas molecules in the form of translational kinetic energy, or does it make the atmosphere warmer only in the sense of re-radiating IR?

Is there a difference between the two?

what? what exactly do you mean by that?

 

[Reality Check]

The basic theory and predictions of the theory of global warming aren't even understood here, much less the physics of why they are as they are.

That is a fantasy, r-j, because the climate science behind global warming and the predictions from that climate science have been mentioned many times by many posters.

In the pursuit of trying to educate you : Greenhouse effect (the physics of how CO2 in the atmosphere warms the surface of the earth!)

The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions. Since part of this re-radiation is back towards the surface and the lower atmosphere, it results in an elevation of the average surface temperature above what it would be in the absence of the gases.[1][2]

 

[Reality Check]

Does a CO2 molecule that has warmed, by absorbing IR, impart that energy to other non-greenhouse gas molecules in the form of translational kinetic energy, or does it make the atmosphere warmer only in the sense of re-radiating IR?

Is there a difference between the two?

Yes, yes and yes (but really needs a duh !), r-j.
Molecules in the atmosphere collide with other molecules in the atmosphere. ETA: So a CO2 molecule that has increased its "translational kinetic energy" can transfer that energy to any other molecule that it collides with.
Molecules that absorb light (and so gain energy or as you rather badly put it "warm"), emit light.
Collision is not emission.

Please tell me that you know these simple physical facts, r-j.

 

[r-j]

what? what exactly do you mean by that?

The basic terms are already well understood by everyone except you.

 

[lomiller]

The basic terms are already well understood by everyone except you.

Lies.

I must retract my statement above. You have demonstrated to my satisfaction are other people besides MK who don't understand the basic terms.

In the pursuit of education, please describe the physics of how CO2 in the atmosphere warms the surface of the earth. And the lower troposphere.

Per the previous (rather extensive) discussion CO2 absorbs IR photons that would have otherwise exited the top of the earth’s atmosphere and re-emits them in a random direction where they may not leave the atmosphere. Since the energy of these photons can’t simply disappear the heat energy content of the earth’s atmosphere rises until a new equilibrium is found where the IR that escapes the atmosphere balances the solar energy entering it.

As to why this energy winds up in the lower troposphere, there is simply no logical reason why some of it would not. Climate scientists have done a great deal of work figuring out where this energy will end up and their conclusion is that most of it winds up in the ocean so your question is misleading at best.

 

[DC]

nice try, but huge fail, i have trouble understand you, not the science.......

you deniers are hard to understand at times.
so what exactly did you mean? i know what the science sais, but im not clear what you are trying to say.....

 

[Reality Check]

r-j, you asked about the greenhouse effect which makes it seem that you have no idea what it is (or implies the delusion that we do not know what it is).
This is basic stuff taught to high school students around the world.

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by r-j View Post

In the pursuit of education, please describe the physics of how CO2 in the atmosphere warms the surface of the earth. And the lower troposphere.

you do not use the terms correctly because you do not comprend so you don't ask questions correctly

C02 MAINTAINS a warmer atmosphere than would be present without it. CO2 alters the radiative balance by trapping outgoing IR
C02 is not a primary radiative source in the sense the sun is. It traps radiation from being reradiated out to space and so keeps the atmosphere habitable.
Adding C02 from fossel fuel use alters the radiative balance and traps more heat because there is more C02.

If you can't ask the questions correctly how can anyone communicate with you.

 

[lomiller]

You’ve no need to further demonstrate you don’t understand basic terminology, I’ve already conceded the point If you were to ask nicely I’m sure someone would explain why “warming” isn’t the basic term you want to use in that case.

You mean, like everyone posting here?

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Quite a few people have pointed to legitimate authority as support for their statements. It's really only been a few people who have insisted on appealing to illegitimate authority

 

[aleCcowaN]

Does a CO2 molecule that has warmed, by absorbing IR, impart that energy to other non-greenhouse gas molecules in the form of translational kinetic energy, or does it make the atmosphere warmer only in the sense of re-radiating IR?

Is there a difference between the two?

The molecule has not warmed (There are no changes in latent heat in a higher scale, so to speak)
It does not "impart" any aditional energy in the form of translational kinetic energy as a consequence of that absorption (nothing of consequences).
It does not make the gases in the atmosphere warmer per se by re-radiating IR as those gases are mostly transparent to those IR. It can affect other scattered CO2 molecules by chance in the same way.

I can't think what on Earth do you imagine the greenhouse effect is.

 

[Belz...]

Lies. The basic theory and predictions of the theory of global warming aren't even understood here, much less the physics of why they are as they are.

I don't think you can generalize your ignorance onto the rest of the population.

 

[Belz...]

You mean, like everyone posting here?

No one is referencing to posters here as authorities.

 

[Belz...]

You're not so much an authority in these matters that your unclear phrasing of questions qualify as "basic terms", r-j.

 

[macdoc]

Ouch...again..

Sensitivity of carbon cycle to tropical temperature variations has doubled
Date:
January 26, 2014
Source:
University of Exeter
Summary:
The tropical carbon cycle has become twice as sensitive to temperature variations over the past 50 years, new research has revealed. The research shows that a one degree rise in tropical temperature leads to around two billion extra tons of carbon being released per year into the atmosphere from tropical ecosystems, compared with the same tropical warming in the 1960s and 1970s.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140126134647.htm

 

[citizenzen]

Lies. The basic theory and predictions of the theory of global warming aren't even understood here, much less the physics of why they are as they are.

To a degree, you're right, though I don't think that proves anything.

The basic theory, predictions and physics behind launching a probe and using gravitation to slingshot it smack in the middle of a comet traveling through our solar system at thousands of miles per hour are thoroughly beyond my knowledge.

Yet scientists accomplished it.

Luckily, it's not my knowledge that is important in these matters.

 

[macdoc]

A very small degree when it comes to the rather simple physics underlying AGW.
Science is built on a latticework of acquired knowledge...tested over time from a variety of approaches and observed.

Both are solid in AGW...complex is what the outcome will be and when and what to do about it.
Some need to move on to that Gordian knot.....rather than repetitious nonsense as seems to be their wont.