Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

Status
Not open for further replies.
r-j said:
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/Courses/6140/ency/Chapter3/Ency_Atmos/Radiation_Solar.pdf

That is a pretty good source, but it says "Of the radiant energy emitted from the Sun, approximately 50% lies in the infrared region ", which isn't the same as stating the percentage that reaches the stratosphere.

Not that it matters, the issue is what happens when CO2 (and the other GhGs) interact with the IR coming from the sun. It would seem it warms up the atmosphere is what it does.
Click to expand...

it gives both, TOA and ground level. how do you measure it in the stratosphere?

and when will you answer my other questions?
 
r-j said:
As for how much IR is reaching our atmosphere, are you kidding me? You don't know how to Google? And why wouldn't you already know this figure?
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, but this is asked by the person who has repeatedly asked questions which could have been easily found with Google.

I don't think you'd like your next question to be answered in the way you just did.
 
r-j said:
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/Courses/6140/ency/Chapter3/Ency_Atmos/Radiation_Solar.pdf

That is a pretty good source, but it says "Of the radiant energy emitted from the Sun, approximately 50% lies in the infrared region ", which isn't the same as stating the percentage that reaches the stratosphere.

Not that it matters, the issue is what happens when CO2 (and the other GhGs) interact with the IR coming from the sun. It would seem it warms up the atmosphere is what it does.
Click to expand...
You are applying a blanket description of 'infrared' quite widely. The sun emits very little radiation at >4um. At those frequences very little radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere (what is absorbed is primarily by water vapour). The earths surface emits at frequencies >4um, this is shown in the graph that Alex put up. Here's another one from Science of Doom:

planck-300-to-5780-toa-lin-typ-albedo-45.png
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/25/the-sun-and-max-planck-agree-part-two/

The absorption windows for the GHGs cover significant portions of the emitted energy curve, so it's the emitted radiation from the earth that interacts with the CO2 in the atmosphere. You have to consider specific energy bands, not apply descriptions blindly. Wavelengths of >700nm are described as IR, but it's not until longer wavelengths where GHGs start to become absorbant.
 
Originally Posted by r-j View Post
So CO2, and especially an increase will have more of an effect on incoming IR than any change in water vapor.
Click to expand...

You only increase water vapor on long time scale globally by increasing the global temp of the atmosphere as water vapor is transient as opposed to CO2 and other GHG which are cumulative and persistent over time. Water vapor then magnifies the effect of the C02 in a positive feedback. More warming, moister atmosphere but then you get into the very complex areas of clouds in a moister atmosphere.
Number I've seen is a doubling of C02 would lead to a 5% increased in moisture load in the atmosphere ( cloud and water vapor ) and that brings up hydrology as a near term threat and we can see that already.

Methane for instance is a far more powerful GHG but drops out of the atmosphere in a relatively short ( decade of so ) time. There are others and ozone has a role as well which I'm not entirely clear on as a moderator in both troposphere and stratoshere. Maybe Alec could expand on that.

Clouds and aerosols remain the most difficult areas for modellers tho they are getting better and the general trend is to consider clouds neutral to slightly positive as far as warming influence but WHERE the clouds reside makes a significant difference to the transient effect on radiation both incoming ( albedo change ) and trapping IR....one reason a clear desert night cools so quickly.....it's wide open to radiate and low on water vapor and cloudless.
 
Last edited:
Mikemcc said:
You are applying a blanket description of 'infrared' quite widely. The sun emits very little radiation at >4um. At those frequences very little radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere (what is absorbed is primarily by water vapour). The earths surface emits at frequencies >4um, this is shown in the graph that Alex put up. Here's another one from Science of Doom:

[qimg]http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/planck-300-to-5780-toa-lin-typ-albedo-45.png[/qimg]http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/25/the-sun-and-max-planck-agree-part-two/

The absorption windows for the GHGs cover significant portions of the emitted energy curve, so it's the emitted radiation from the earth that interacts with the CO2 in the atmosphere. You have to consider specific energy bands, not apply descriptions blindly. Wavelengths of >700nm are described as IR, but it's not until longer wavelengths where GHGs start to become absorbant.
Click to expand...


I had a feeling that was the case. That's why I asked for his source. I had actually done a quick search before requesting it and didn't find the answer as obvious as j-r believed it to be.
 
citizenzen said:
I'm sorry, but this is asked by the person who has repeatedly asked questions which could have been easily found with Google.
Click to expand...
That's a lie. If I could have easily found the answers, it would be a different conversation right now!

But I feel a lot better now that I found out nobody else knew the answer either.

Except I'm still not sure the answer is correct. If CO2 transfers heat by collisions with O2 and N2 molecules, there is no way it can be re-radiating back the amount of IR the diagrams show.

It's not physically possible.
 
Last edited:
Alaska is setting all time records for warmth in January

Arctic ‘Heat Wave’ to Rip Polar Vortex in Half, Shatter Alaska’s All-Time Record High for January?
62 Degrees Fahrenheit. That’s the all time record high for anywhere in the state of Alaska for the month of January. 57 Degrees Fahrenheit. That’s the temperature measured earlier this week in southern Alaska.

And forecasts call for warmer weather from Friday through Monday…

Across Alaska, temperatures are as much a 30 degrees above average for this time of year. This record winter warmth has pushed Alaska’s average temperature, according to reports from Anchorage, to 24 degrees Fahrenheit.
Click to expand...

http://robertscribbler.wordpress.co...ter-alaskas-all-time-record-high-for-january/

and it was the same for Siberia in December

Where has Siberia's winter gone?
Remote northern region of Russia is experiencing a long-term warming trend, changing the very nature of the landscape.
Richard Angwin Last updated: 19 Dec 2013 09:46
Click to expand...

http://www.aljazeera.com/weather/2013/12/where-siberia-winter-gone-2013121992332312557.html

snip
What makes this change particularly interesting is that it seems to be part of a longer-term trend.

The warmer weather has been in evidence for several months. Back in July, Norilsk, the most northerly city in the world, recorded temperatures above 28C for eight consecutive days. Maximum temperatures here usually reach no higher than 16C. Such temperature anomalies were widespread across Siberia during the month.

Although temperatures have been increasing globally, since the mid-1970s temperatures here have risen by 0.34C per decade faster than the global average of 0.17C.
Click to expand...

Global average increases are not indicative of the regional impacts and in the north the impacts are already significant.
Those that chortle about miniscule .6 C globally are fools and very poorly educated in climate change.
 
Last edited:
r-j said:
That's a lie. If I could have easily found the answers, it would be a different conversation right now!

But I feel a lot better now that I found out nobody else knew the answer either.
Click to expand...


I found the answer with a quick Google search.


Except I'm still not sure the answer is correct. If CO2 transfers heat by collisions with O2 and N2 molecules, there is no way it can be re-radiating back the amount of IR the diagrams show.

It's not physically possible.
Click to expand...


How do you know how much is re-radiating back?

By judging the size of the arrows?
 
r-j said:
No you didn't.
Click to expand...


How do you know?

Source please.


r-j said:
You see? If you found the answer, you wouldn't have to ask that question.
Click to expand...


Your assertion isn't based on my knowledge.

Your assertion is based on what the diagram showed.

The diagram only shows arrows and doesn't quantify their values.

So how can you claim that there can't possibly be the amount radiating back as the diagram shows?

Do you really take the size of those arrows that literally?

Isn't it possible that they aren't drawn to scale?

How come you aren't likewise arguing that the arrows coming from the Sun aren't BIG enough?
 
Originally Posted by r-j View Post
That's a lie. If I could have easily found the answers, it would be a different conversation right now!
Click to expand...

a to know the answer or find the answer easily you have to know how to ask the correct question which you demonstrably did not.

But I feel a lot better now that I found out nobody else knew the answer either.
Click to expand...

Is another lie........about no one knowing the answer to your muddy questions -
That you feel better may be true in your twisted frame of reference but has nothing to do with the validity of your assinine insinuation.....don't consider your own incredible ignorance on climate science is reflected here. :mad:

You could not even frame the question and had to be "coached"...now you claim some marvelous discovery....:boggled:
:dl:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom